JT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 < Jl 
 
 

 
 THERE are different opinions respecting the object 
 of pur Saviour's Mission, some persons supposing 
 it to have been principally confined to his declaring 
 to mankind the Will of the Almighty respecting, 
 their duty and expectations, and of setting an 
 example of resignation and patience ; while others 
 think it must have extended much further than 
 that ; his short abode upon earth, and more par- 
 ticularly, the brief period of his ministry, appear to 
 be irreconcileable with the first of these views of 
 the subject. 
 
 I believe our Saviour to have been a created 
 Being, highly endowed with wisdom and power by 
 his Almighty Father, and that he was sent into 
 the world to benefit mankind; thiit he became a 
 Sacrifice, and suffered death upon the cross, and 
 rose from the dead, and is become our Mediator 
 and Advocate ; and that by supplicating the Al- 
 mighty in his name, we shall, through the efficacy 
 of his death, find acceptance, and obtain pardon of 
 our sins upon repentance. 
 
 The subject thus considered will admit of those 
 expressions being brought into it, such as Christ 
 having died for us, of our being reconciled by his 
 blood, and all similar passages, with as great pro- 
 priety as they are generally applied by those who 
 advocate a vicarious satisfaction, inasmu -h as his 
 blood was shed that he might be enabled to enter 
 upon his office as our Mediator and Judge, and 
 give us access to the Throne of Grace and Mercy.
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO 
 
 3fn Defence 
 
 BY another BARRISTER. 
 
 SECOND EDITIONj 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN ADDITIONAL LETTER. 
 
 Magna est veritas et prtevalebit. 
 
 Hontion: 
 
 PRINTED BT RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOR, SHOE-LA'XK : 
 AND SOLD BY R. HUNTER, ST. FAUI/S CHURCHYARD ; AND 
 BY D. EATON, 187, HIGH HOLBORN. \ 
 
 1820.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 J.HJE following Letters constitute the author's 
 part of a real and amicable correspondence, 
 which took place between himself and his 
 friend, to whom they were addressed, in con- 
 sequence of a remark accidentally made in con- 
 versation, that the words of our Saviour (John 
 x. 30), " I and my Father are one," prove the 
 trinitarian doctrine of his equality with the 
 Father, which the author denied, and main- 
 tained that the whole of the dialogue between 
 our blessed Lord, and the Jews, of which this 
 text forms a part, taken together, proves the 
 contrary. They were written without any in- 
 tention' of publishing them ; but having been 
 shewn to another friend of the author, of whose 
 judgment he has a very high opinion, and to 
 
 a3
 
 Jl 
 
 whom the world is indebted for several most 
 valuable theological works, for him to see, 
 whether the author, who has not been accus- 
 tomed to controversies of this description, had 
 made any material mistake, or mistatement, 
 which ought to be candidly acknowledged, and 
 retracted, he recommended their being made 
 public, as likely to promote the interests of 
 religious truth. If it be probable that this ef- 
 fect will result from their publication, in how- 
 ever small a degree, the author knows it to be 
 his duty, to lay them before the public ; and 
 has therefore determined to commit them to 
 the press, trusting that reasonable allowance 
 will be made for his not being a theologian by 
 profession. 
 
 He has designated himself only by the pro- 
 fession to which he belongs, his arguments, and 
 not his name, being all that the public are con- 
 cerned with : and he has called himself, another 
 Barrister, merely to distinguish himself from an 
 ingenious member of the same profession, who 
 some years since published many valuable let- 
 ters on various religious subjects. 
 
 Having occasionally made use of the word 
 sect, in the course of the following letters* he
 
 Ill 
 
 "* v 
 
 begs leave to disclaim having ever adopted it in 
 the confined, and illiberal, sense of it, which ren- 
 ders it a term of reproach. He well knows, that 
 in this sense, all the members of every church, 
 of which the Christian world is composed, may 
 be considered by turns to be sectarians by the 
 narrow-minded and bigoted individuals of other 
 churches. In this sense a member of the Church 
 of England will be deemed a sectarian the mo- 
 ment he sets his foot on the north bank of the 
 Tweed, as will any member of the Church of 
 Scotland, whom he may bring back with him, 
 as soon as he reaches the opposite bank of the 
 same river : and should they chance to travel 
 
 / 
 
 further together, and cross the Channel, on land- 
 ing upon its southern shore, they would both be 
 denominated sectarians by our Roman Catholic 
 neighbours. Here if they were to associate to 
 themselves some honest Frenchman, and take a 
 longer journey to the north, inclining somewhat 
 to the east, they would arrive in a Christian coun- 
 try, in which they might travel seven thousand 
 miles, and be all three considered sectarians, 
 during the whole of their progress. The author 
 has therefore invariably used the word in its 
 more enlarged, and as he conceives, correct,
 
 IV 
 
 sense, in which all the Churches 'of Christendom, 
 whether differing in doctrine, or form of church 
 government, whether national, or otherwise, are 
 sects, or divisions, constituting altogether, the 
 truly catholic, br universal church of Christ. 
 
 He wishes it also to be understood, that he 
 considers Unitarianism, as such, to have nothing 
 to do with any particular form of church govern- 
 ment. Different nations, and individuals, always 
 have, and perhaps ever will, entertain different 
 opinions upon this subject, and the Unitarian, 
 like the rest of his fellow Christians, will of 
 course determine for himself. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 SECOND EDITION, 
 
 THE author avails himself of the opportunity 
 afforded him by the publication of a second 
 edition of his two first Letters, to submit to the 
 consideration of the Public an additional Letter, 
 written in answer to a third received from his 
 friend. It will shew the present state of the 
 controversy, and enable the reader to judge 
 how far the author has succeeded in the expla- 
 nation of many very important passages of 
 Scripture which bear most strongly upon the 
 questions in difference between the Unitarians 
 and Trinitarians.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 1 HE Divine's first letter occasioned by the author's quoting in conver- 
 sation John x. 30-36 as being adverse to the Trinitarian hypothesis, p. 1. Re- 
 marks in proof of this, and of our Lord having intimated, that though he 
 might have called himself 9-i, God, or a god, in that inferior sense of the 
 word in which the prophets were so called, he had not done even this, but 
 only said, that he was the Sew of God. p. 2. Objections to the Divine's state- 
 ment, that the word qf_God which canie_to the prophets, was jhejgterjaaj 
 LogosT That Heb. i. 1. proves Christ to be the Son of that God who spoke by 
 the jjrophets : amf consequently if the latter were the eternal Logos, there 
 must be a quaternity of Gods. p. 3. Strange that the ward of a being, because 
 figuratively personified, should be supposed to designate one person, and the 
 being whose word it was, another. Absurdity of so construing 1 Sam. iv. 1. p. 4. 
 Meaning of the word ' blasphemy' imputed by the Jews to our Lord, according 
 to Scripture pli raseoTogy : shewing That it might be spoken not only of God, 
 but of kings, and other persons in high stations. 1 Kings, xxiTTsTpTi. Our 
 Lord himself the best interpreter of Hs own ^xpTession, " I^ndj:nyJF^therare_ 
 one." John x. 30, His construction of it, that they were one in sentiment or 
 design, exemplified by John xvii. 11. p. 5. His own interpretation pJMiis_de; 
 clarations, that his Father had sent him into the world, and thatjiejvasjn his 
 Father, and h'is JFatheTin him, as^ivVnTn"John xvii. 18, 21, 23^ shews, that 
 he did not mean his being~sent from another world, or that his iw'ngjvas iden- 
 tified with that of his PaTEer7p~. 6. But one creed in the New Testament, 
 namely, ITTafTesus isThe Christ. 'All that has been added to it is mere 
 human invention, p. 7. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 The author gratified to learn what could be advanced on John x. 27-36, 
 by his friend's learning and ingenuity. He is aware that some of the Greek 
 fathers, after the doctrine of the Trinity had made considerable progress, 
 quoted John x. 30. Reply to the observation, that they must have known 
 their own language better than we do, exemplified by the different construc- 
 tions of modern Acts of Parliament p. 8. No wonder that one of the fisher- 
 men of Galilee, writing in a foreign language, should, after two or three cen- 
 turies, be sometimes misunderstood, and constructions put upon his writings 
 which he never intended; but rather surprising that he should never have ex- 
 pressed himself so clearly upon difficult subjects, that by comparing one part of
 
 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 his writings with another, and applying to them the rules ot fair criticism, we 
 should understand them so well as we do. p. 10. Rules of law for the con- 
 struction of Acts of Parliament. Following the same course, and interpreting 
 Scripture by Scripture, we may ascertain their meaning with as much cer- 
 tainty as the fathers, p. 1 1. Their interpretation of , as one being, merely 
 conjectural, and not depending upon any particular knowledge of the lan- 
 guage, p. 1 1. Our Lord's own words prove that he understood it in the sense 
 of one thing, p. 12. As did other persons even in the times of the fathers, p. 1 8. 
 John xyii. 20. shews, that our Lord's being in the Father, and the Father in 
 him, is no proof of his divinity, p. 13. The nature of his glory misunder- 
 
 . stood. Whatever it was, it was given to him by the Father, and he commu- 
 nicated the very same glory to his disciples. John xvii. 5, 2'2. p. 14. He had no 
 original power, but received it all from thej'ather, by whose command he acted. 
 That he neither claimed, nor had, any thing in his ownrignT^br from the 
 
 . Holy Ghost, p. 14. He could not intend to say, that he and his Father were 
 one person ; but it exactly suited the train of his argument to say that they 
 were one thing ; which is the obvious meaning of the word l/p. 15. The in- 
 troduction of the words TSwa inadmissible, p. 16. Qjir Lord represents all 
 
 liis power an given to him, and all his authority as delegated, declaring that of 
 himself he could do nothing. John v. 30. p. 1 6. Reply to the Divine's remark, 
 that the fathers considered the absence of the article no evidence of reading 
 
 3i* a God. p. 17. Proof from Origen that_3-j with the article is not appli- 
 cable to Christ, but to the Father only. p. 19. Confirmed by Clemens 
 Alexandrinus and Eusebius. p. 20. and supported by the general tenor of 
 Scripture, which applies $*, God, 'with the article, ta the Father only, and 
 Bmt, God, without the article, in an inferior sense, to prophets and rulers j in 
 which sense our Lord intimates that it might have been applied to himself, p. 20. 
 When it is applied to a prophet, to Moses for instance, the rendering into 
 English will of course be a god. p. 21. This criticism on the articis probably 
 proved the occasion of the Divine's passing over without observation what con- 
 stitutes the strength of the author's argument, which he re-states and en- 
 forces, p. 22. That no human mind not previously full of the Trinitarian 
 hypothesis, would ever have drawn from this passage the strange conclusion, 
 that our Lord contended that he and his Father were one God, contrary to his 
 express declaration, that he considered the Jews to be imputing blasphemy to 
 him, because he said that he was the Son of God. p. 23. That notwithstanding 
 the fathers, without a tittle of evidence, explain tv to be to 3-int, one divine 
 Being, to say that two persons are one being is a flat contradiction, and 
 why. p. 24. Some remarks upon their qualifications for explaining the doc- 
 trines of Christianity, p. '24. Answer to a further argument by which it is 
 attempted to be shewn, that the rendering of 9ij in the common version God, 
 is a fairer interpretation of the Greek than a God, quoting Ex. vii. 5. but 
 stating, that after all, it is of little importance in what sense the Jews iinder- 
 sttxxl our Lord to have made himself SUV, God, or a God, as he plainly inti- 
 mated to them that they were mistaken, for that he had never made himsdf
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 
 
 9i, God or a God, at all. p. 25. There is scarcely a part of this celebrated 
 passage, to often quoted in support of the Trinity, which will not be found to 
 be in direct opposition to it. Further proof of this from the part in whicb our 
 Lord says that he was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father. How 
 is it that the Holy Ghost had no concern in the sanctifying or sending our 
 Lord? p. 27. Theautbordoes not, any more than his friend, conceive Samuel's 
 word to be a person, because no other scripture leads him to adopt such an 
 opinion ; neither does he for the same reason consider the word of the Father 
 to be a person, because personified as wisdom is, Prov. viii. 1 , and the breath of 
 the Lord's mouth, Ps. xxxiii. 6. p. 29 Trinitarians understand tbe words i 
 >>> John i. 1 , in the sense of ' the beginning of the world,' in which sense it ia 
 never used by the apostle, but frequently in that of the beginning of our 
 Lord's ministry. Being with G^d does not mean being God. p. 30. -Why our 
 Lord is called the Word. p. 31. The giving men such names, and calling 
 them by names denoting what they did or resembled, common in Scripture. 
 Calling him the Word, therefore, no reason for supposing him to be that God 
 whose word he was called, but the contrary. As to the clause that the Word 
 was if, God or a god, prophets and rulers were frequently called gods. If the 
 word, supposing it applied to Christ, is not used in this inferior sense, why is 
 he not frequently called a HS , as well as the Father ? Interpreting Scripture 
 by Scripture, the answer is obvious, p. 32. The 10th chapter explains the use 
 of the word Stcf in this chapter, and iu both the word is without the article. 
 Instance of an angel being called My God, 2 Esdr. vii. 3. The moderns confine 
 the word to the Most High, but the ancients did not, and we must interpret it 
 according to their mode of using it. p. 34. The rendering of the common ver- 
 sion, John i. 3, Allthing'i weremadeby him,' incorrect; the verb y^n^an, though 
 used 700 times in the New Testament, never being used to denote creating. 
 The sense warranted by the use of the word in other parts of Scripture is, that 
 all things were done or performed by him. p. 34. Sense in which the words 
 all thingt are to be understood, p. 36. The inference that Christ was not made, 
 because he could not make himself, depends upon the rendering of the word 
 yi>,uai, and the meaning of the words ' all things :' but if the Trinitarian sense 
 of both were rijiht, it would not follow that he created all persons ; and if he 
 did, it would follow, that he created the Father and the Holy Ghost, p. 37. 
 The rest of the passage not in favour of Trinitaiianism even in the common 
 version ; but the true reading is, that ' the Word was flesh (or a man), and we 
 saw his glory, not as the glory of God, but as of the only-begotten Son of 
 God.' p. 33. Explanation of the word ' only-begotten.' p. 38. The author 
 utterly at a loss where to find the innumerable passages alleged by his friend ' 
 to ascribe divinity to our Saviour, p. 39. He can see no proof of the incar- 
 nation in the Scriptures, and therefore can only repeat the celebrated remark 
 of Sir Isaac Newton on the subject, p. 40. This doctrine, supposed to be 
 taught, together with the miraculous conception, in John i. Matt. i. and ii. and 
 Lnke i. and ii. The 1st chapter of John shewn not to contain it. p. 40. Ex- 
 amination of the passage in Matt. i. usually quoted to prove the miraculous 
 
 b
 
 X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 conception and incarnation. Not a word ID it alludes to any thing like the 
 incarnation or even pre-existence of our Lord, though it would, if correct, 
 prove the miraculous conception ; but would prove also that our Lord was 
 begotten by, and the Son of, the Holy Ghost, and not of the Father, as he is 
 represented to be in all the genuine parts of Scripture, p. 41. There are 
 proofs, however, both external and internal, some of which are stated, that 
 the two first chapters of this Gospel and the two first chapters of Luke are 
 ipurious. p. 43. Observations on the manner in which the author of the two 
 first chapters ascribed to Matthew, deals with the prophecy I<a. vii. 1 4. and 
 pretends it to have been accomplished in our Lord. p. 43. Examination of 
 the prophecy itself, to ascertain whether it relates to our Lord at all, and 
 reasons for concluding that it does not p. 49. Incarnation never taught by 
 our Lord, nor to be found in Scripture, p. 54. Contrary even to the Trini- 
 tarian interpretation of John i. Considered as a permanent union of the Logos 
 with the human nature constituting one person, to be found only in the de- 
 crees of councils and synod?. Our Lord gives no bint of his havitig two na- 
 tures ; speaks of no union but between the Father and himself, nor of any 
 superior being dwelling in him but the Father, p. 55. Had he been con- 
 scious of the divine Logos being inseparably united to him, how could he have 
 said " Of mine own self 1 can do nothing : my Father, who dwelleth in me, 
 He doth the works." p. 55. None of the apostles speak of the incarnation, or 
 of the two natures, p. 56. Proofs that the divine Logos, if our Lord had it, 
 did not enable him to perform one miracle, to impart one divine revelation, or 
 to bear one suffering, p. 56. Lamentable exhibition in the garden, Luke xx. 43. 
 upon the Trinitarian hypothesis of the incarnation, p. 57. Further remarks 
 upon this subject, p. 58. Sir Isaac Newton's observation respecting it. The 
 time he speaks of fast approaching. Great increase of the Unitarians who 
 think as be "did. p. 59. Their explanation of the scene in the garden, p. 60. 
 The author unable to discover where our Lord claims true Deity, or our 
 worship, if divine worship be meant, particularly prayer, p. 60. There is not 
 a single command to pray to him, not even after his resurrection and ascen- 
 sion, p. 61. Explanation of three or four doubtful passages, which Trinita- 
 rians consider as representing prayer to have been addressed to him. p. 61. 
 No precept to pray to the Holy Ghost. Our Lord uniformly directs bis fol- 
 lowers to pray to the Father, and never to himself or to the Holy Ghost. To 
 the latter no one was ever commanded to pray, or ever did pray, during the 
 lifeof our Lord or of his apostles, p. 63. This goes to the root of the Trinitarian 
 system, p. 64. The holy spirit a power, and making it a perivn a great cor- 
 ruption of Christianity, p. 65. The terms ' Father' and ' word' both figurative, 
 Why Christ is figuratively called the ' word.' p. 65. In what sense the word 
 Father is figuratively applied to God, and that of ' begotten ' to Christ, p. 66. 
 Our Lord's own reply demonstrates that he did not consider the Jews in 
 John x. as understanding that he being a man made himself equal with God, 
 but that he made himself a god in the inferior sense of the word in which it 
 was applied to the prophets, and that they were mistaken eren in this. The
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS.^ XI 
 
 unity he spoke of only an unity of design, or intention, p. 61. Further re- 
 marks on the Jewish ideas of blasphemy. No difficulty in this respect on 
 the Unitarian system, p. 69. Not a particle of evidence in the Scriptures that 
 the Jews expected their Messiah to be equal to God. Our Lord himself fre- 
 quently inculcated his own inferiority, that his Father was greater, and that 
 he himself was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, p. 78. Absurdity of sup- 
 posing that he knew the day of judgment in one nature and not in another. 
 Our Lord himself negatives this unnatural construction, by declaring that 
 his Father only knew it, Matt. xxiv. 36, thereby excluding any supposed 
 divine nature in himself, and also the Holy Ghost, if supposed to be a per- 
 son, p. 70. Total failure of Mr. \Vardlaw's explanation of this text. p. 71. 
 Our Lord never practised the double dealing imputed to him by the Trinita- 
 rians, of speaking in a sense different from that which his words imported. 
 The divine nature of no use, nothing having been done by it, but all by the 
 power of the Father only. p. 76. The divine nature nowhere alluded to as 
 qualifying our Lord to exercise the office of universal judge, to which he is 
 not stated to have been appointed because he has a divine nature, but solely 
 because he is the son of man. p. 76. Mr. Wardlaw's invitation to his readers 
 to apply the words ' absurd' and ' impossible' to the doctrine that God could 
 make our Lord, supposing him to be a man like ourselves, the future judge of 
 the whole human race, considered and answered, p. 77. Such power, however 
 great, still finite, and nothing compared with omnipotence and omniscience. 
 p. 79. Reflections on the greatness of the Supreme Being, as exemplified in 
 the works of creation, p. 80. Probability that all space is inhabited, and that 
 the works of the Supreme Being are like himself, infinite, p. 83. Strange and 
 incorrect conclusion of Mr. Wardlaw, that if we do not consider a being in- 
 vested with power to judge mankind infinite, we cannot prove the Deity to be 
 so. p. 84. Not certain that our Lord is to exercise this high office alone, p. 84. 
 This not the only text which negatives the omniscience of our Lord, and the 
 Holy Ghost, considered as a person, proved by John xvii. 3. and 1 Cor. viii. 4-6. 
 which shew, that neither of them can be possessed of omnipotence, omniscience, 
 or omnipresence, p. 86. It being impossible to impute either to our Lord or 
 to St. Paul in these texts, the double dealing so unjustly ascribed to the former, 
 why should it be imputed to him in other texts where his wofds are clear, as 
 in John xiv. 23. p. 88. If being one with another, means in some places, none 
 of which the author can find, humble imitation of a grand model, applying the 
 same standard in both instances, it will follow, that Christ's being one with 
 the Father, implied his humble imitation of him as his grand model; and 
 consequently his inferiority to the model he proposed to himself for bis imi- 
 tation, p. 89. Nature of Christ's union with the Father, and of the glory 
 which the Father had given him, illustrated by John xvii. 11, 20, 21,22. p. 90. 
 No proof in the Scriptures of an union between the Father and Son, which 
 springs from identity of substance, p. 91. The plain meaningof John xvii. 18, 
 without alteration or addition, that Christ was sent into the world by bis 
 Father, as his disciples were sent into the world by him. The Divine's con- 
 
 b2
 
 Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 iti action, that he was sent from another world, rests upon unauthorised ad- 
 ditions to the'text p. 92. By ' the world,' into which both were sent, was 
 denoted the men of that age and country, shewn by John vii. 4, 7. p. 93. 
 Construction of John xvi. 28, that our Lord having been admitted to the know- 
 ledge of the divine counsels, was sent forth amongst mankind to declare them, 
 as his disciples, having been admitted to the knowledge of his counsels and 
 designs, were in like manner sent forth by him amongst mankind to declare 
 them. John xvii. 18. In this sense both passages harmonize, and are also in 
 unison with John i. 6. His leaving the world not designed to be taken in the 
 same sense as his coming, p. 94. Fallacy of supposing that because he was 
 to go to the Father into another world by death, therefore he must have come 
 forth from the Father from some other world into this. p. 96. John v. 22, 23, 
 instead of proving the equality of the Son with the Father, proves the contrary, 
 as appears by the reasons assigned for men's honouring him as they honour 
 the Father, p. 97. Strong light thrown upon this subject in ver. 26, 27, shewing 
 that the Son had not originally in himself either life or power to execute judg- 
 ment, but that both \teregiven to him by the Father: neither is any other 
 person called the Holy Ghost represented as having originally possessed, or 
 having joined in bestowing them upon the Son. p. 99. The ascription to 
 Christ of every name, title, attribute, work, and honour of Deity not to be 
 found in the Scriptures. His supposed omniscience and omnipotence nega- 
 tived by himself. Matt xxiv. 36. John v. 30. Luke xx. 23. Those attributes 
 ascribed to the-Father only, and not to the Son or Holy Ghost, or to the Trinity. 
 Even his kingdom is not to be eternal, but to be delivered up to the Father, 
 who alone claims, and is entitled to, the attributes of true Deity, p. 100. 
 Fallacy of urging the ascription of names and titles as proof that the person 
 to whom they are ascribed is God. p. 101. Arguments founded upon mere 
 implication, or inference, are nothing against the plain declarations of Scrip- 
 ture, exemplified by 2 Pet. i. 4. p. 102. Instead of making express decla- 
 rations bend to opinions founded upon mere inference, we ought to adopt the 
 converse mode of proceeding. This illustrated by Matt. vi. 6, 9, and Luke xi. 2, 
 where our Lord directs us when we pray to pray to the Father, and to say 
 ' our Father,' and has left us no direction to pray to any other person ; yet we 
 having contrived, contrary to express declaration, to infer from a figurative 
 expression, which means no such thing, that he is equal to the Father, have 
 inferred likewise, that we are bound to pray to him. Having also inferred 
 from other figurative expressions, that there is another person called the 
 Holy Ghost, who is equal to the Father, we draw the further inference, that we 
 are to pray to him likewise, a practice inconsistent with our Lord's express 
 precept, with his uniform example, and the example of all his apostles, p. 103. 
 Can we on no better authority address those prayers to the Son, which the 
 Son himself has commanded us to offer to his Father, or help shuddering with 
 the plain unlettered men described by Tertullian, at the idea of adopting any 
 doctrine interfering with his sole sovereignty ? Is it possible for us to think, 
 that we testify our love for the Son by thus disregarding his precepts ? p. 1 04.
 
 TABLE bP CONTENTS. 5ml 
 
 Our Lord says, If ye love me, keep my commandments. Johnxiv. 15. He 
 commanded us When we pray, to address ourselves to the Father; yet we have 
 thought fit, without any commandment, to offer up our prayers to the Son 
 and to the Holy Ghost, p. 103. The author having in consequence of his 
 friend's letter fully reconsidered the arguments for and against the doctrines 
 of the Trinity, the result has been his conviction, that they have no foun- 
 dation in Scripture, p. 106. -Though great and excellent characters have held 
 them, this does not alter their nature, which must be determined, not by 
 great names, but by their conformity or nonconformity to Scripture. Con- 
 sequence of relying implicitly upon the opinions of fathers and councils, or 
 individual writers, p. 107. Little respect due to the decrees of councils. 
 Their outrageous, factious, and bigoted proceedings. Little freedom of de- 
 bate amongst them, nor much chance of any subject being fairly and calmly 
 discussed, p. 108. -Monstrous and absurd articles of faith decreed by them, 
 one of which is, that a man can make his Creator, and that after he has made 
 him, it is his duty to eat him. Language of individual writers who have 
 adopted their doctrines, if possible, still more shocking and disgusting, p. 109. 
 This what mankind must descend to, if they once give up the right of private 
 judgment. We ought to maintain, as our ancestors did at the Reformation, 
 that the Bible is the religion, and private judgment the right, of Protestants. 
 Progress since made, and still making, in discovering the errors which have 
 been engrafted upon Christianity, which, however, even in its most corrupt 
 form, makes men better than any other religion. Even the Church of Rome, 
 debased and degraded as it is, has produced most meritorious and excellent 
 men. In our own country and age, every sect can furnish numerous instances 
 of most pious, learned, benevolent, and useful characters, spreading the ge- 
 nuine lustre of Christianity around them. The union of all denominations 
 in circulating the Scriptures ; some difference of opinion, however, to be ex- 
 pected upon religious as well as other subjects j perfect uniformity of senti- 
 ment, perhaps, never having been designed to take place; notwithstanding 
 which, religion binds all in its comprehensive embrace, and will ensure the 
 safety and happiness of all who obey its precepts, p. 110. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 The author's reasoning not Irrelative, as directed against the Divine's sen- 
 timents ; the latter not agreeing, a* he supposes, to the humanity and sub- 
 jection of, and the rewards received by, the Redeemer; but only to the 
 humanity and subjection of, and the rewards received by, par* of him. p. 113. 
 The author inquires where the Scriptures say that our Lord had two natures; 
 a question that has never received an answer. The Trinitarians, who assert 
 tke two natures, bound to prove it ; which they have not done : but the author 
 has proved, that if a divine nature existed in our Lord, it did nothing; but was 
 absolutely useless, p. 114. The two natures represented to be inseparably 
 united, and to constitute but one person, the Redeemer, who is to be subject 
 to the Father. The subjection of the whole, therefore, does not accord with
 
 XIV TABLE OF CONTENT!. 
 
 the supremacy of part : and this subjection extends to his present, and is to 
 extend to his future, exalted and glorified state, without any intimation of its 
 being predicted of only part of him. p. 115. Gilbert Wakefield's opinion, 
 that the double view of Christ, as both God and man, best accords with the 
 letter of Scripture; not the author's, except in the same sense as Moses in 
 Exod. vii. 1. the princes, rulers, and magistrates, Exod. xxi. 5,6. Id. xxii. 
 8, 9, 28. in Numbers, Psalm?, in the Prophets, and in John x. 34, 35. were 
 both Gods and men, in which sense the letter and the spirit of Scripture com- 
 pletely harmonize ; and this exposition is the more valuable, as being one of 
 our Lord's own ; but has nothing to do with the doctrine of the two natures , 
 which is not supported by a single text p. 116. If there had been another 
 nature in our Lord, it could not have been infinite or supreme, being excluded 
 by our Lord himself from infinite knowledge and infinite power, Matt. xx. 23, 
 Acts i. 7. p. 1 1 6. The second nature a nonentity, p. 117. Remarks upon 
 the promise in Paradise, Gen. iii. 15. that the seed of the woman should bruise 
 the serpent's head. Why the seed is with more propriety called the seed of 
 the woman than of the man, though the seed of both. No proof that it was 
 to have two natures, or to be more than a man. Had it even meant a mira- 
 culous conception, or production, that does not prove the divinity of the be- 
 ing thus produced. Adam a miraculous production ; yet he had but one 
 nature, and that not the nature of his only parent, but a human nature 
 only. p. 1 1 8. The strange opinion of the two natures seems to have been 
 introduced into Christianity by the Gentile converts, and how. p. 120. Al- 
 ways rejected by the Jewish Christians, p. 121. If Is. vii. 14. had related to 
 Christ, and had announced him, as one that was to be born of a virgin, that 
 would only have been a miraculous conception, and would not have proved 
 him to have been more than a man ; but the word there used may be, and in 
 early times was, translated young woman, p. 122. Proofs from Scripture, 
 that our Lord had a human father, as well as a human mother, and therefore 
 could not have been born of a virgin. John i. 45, Id. vi. 42. p. 123. Strange, 
 if pur Lord had been announced as one that was to be born of a virgin, 'that 
 not one of his apostles should ever have preached this important doctrine. 
 p. 124. Would Philip, if he had ever heard of it, have told Nathanael, 
 John i. 45, that he and others of the disciples had found the Messiah Jesus 
 of Nazareth, the son of Joseph * p. 125. All of them appear to have been in a 
 state of profound ignorance of the existence of any such notion, as that he 
 was to be born of a virgin. The conclusion is obvious, that Is. vii. 14. could 
 not have been interpreted then as it is now: p. 125. Impossible that 
 a people so prepared for Christianity, and imbued with such sentiments, and 
 possessed of such knowledge, as the Divine supposes, should have had no idea 
 of these doctrines, or any others connected with the Trinitarian hypothesis. 
 p. 126. It would have been wonderful, if the Jews had been prepared for, 
 and imbued with, Trinitarian sentiments, that Peter, in his first sermon, 
 should never have alluded to any Trinitarian opinion, and that not a Jew 
 whom the apostles converted, nor the Jewish church at Jerusalem, which they 
 founded, should pver have beon Trinitarians, p. 126. Remarks upon Is. ]* 6>.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. -XV 
 
 Difficulties attending it, differences in the manuscripts and different transla- 
 tions. Reasons for not translating it as in the common version. No doctrinal 
 point to be established upon such a basis ; much less so stupendous and impro- 
 bable an one, that a person who appeared as a man in every respect, was the 
 Supreme Being, especially when there is another translation obvious, easy, and 
 unattended with any such difficulty, p. 127. It is not correct to say, that 
 the Jews never used the term a God, but by way of reproach.' Proofs from 
 Scripture, that they used it otherwise, applying it in its inferior sense to 
 prophets, judges, rulers, priests, and angels, p. 129. The Gods of the Egyp- 
 tians not alluded to in the 7th chap, of Exod. p. 131. Reply to the observa- 
 tion that the Jews considered the name of Jehovah as incommunicable, 
 and that passages spoken of Jehovah in the Old Testament are applied to 
 Christ by the apostles in the New, shewing the superstition of the Jews about 
 the name Jehovah, which they did not draw from their Scriptures, thus 
 shewing it not only to have been communicable, but to have been actually 
 communicated to persons, places, and things, and why. p. 132. Instances 
 of this from the Old Testament, p. 133. Supposing Joshua to have been 
 a type of Christ, as its communication to the type does not prove him to have 
 been more than man, neither does its communication to the antitype prove 
 any thing more. p. 134. It was never intended to identify the persons, places, 
 or things, to which it was communicated with Jehovah himself, p. 135. 
 Difficult for Trinitarians to give up their preconceived opinions upon this sub- 
 ject, p. 136. Jer, xxiii. 6, 7, and Is. xlv. 24, 25, respecting ' the Lord our 
 righteousness,' and/ in Jehovah have we righteousness,' furnish no proof of our 
 Lord being Jehovah, supposing the first prophecy to apply to him, the same 
 things being affirmed of different persons, sometimes in the same sense, and 
 sometimes in different senses, illustrated by I Chron. xxix. 20. Exod. xiv. 31. 
 Id. xx. 2. Id. xxxii. 7. and xxxiii. 1. Deut. v. 6. 1 Sam. ii. 12. The same as to 
 John the Baptist going before Jehovah, and also going before Christ. The ar- 
 gument that persons must be the same, because the same things are affirmed 
 of them, would be held wretched reasoning for any other purpose than to 
 prove the Trinity. Effect of similar reasoning in astronomy, p. 138. Fur- 
 ther remarks on Jer. xxiii, 6, 7, and Is. xlv. 24, illustrated by Jer. xxxiii. 15, 
 and 2 Cor. v. 1 9. shewing that Jehovah and Christ are different persons, p. 140. 
 The Divine produces no proofs of his assertion, that passages spoken of Je- 
 hovah in the Old Testament are without scruple applied to Christ in the New ; 
 nor does he invalidate the author's former arguments against his assertion, 
 that every divine name, title, attribute, &c. is ascribed to Christ in the Scrip- 
 tures, shewing that some of the most important are not only never ascribed to 
 him, but upon his own authority do not exist in him ; notwithstanding which, 
 be repeats the same assertion with as little ceremony as at first, p. 142. As 
 names and titles seem to be still relied upon, an additional list is furnished 
 of names given to a variety of persons, from which it might be proved, that 
 each of them was God, and possessed of divine attributes, precisely as the 
 
 Divine proposes to prove from the ascription of such names to Christ, that hs 
 
 '<^fi i,-:; ... :. i t >. >
 
 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 is God. p. 144. The names given to different persons, calling them Jehovah 
 and God, and seemingly ascribing to them his divine attributes, many of them 
 as high and lofty as any given to our Saviour, shew that all of them to- 
 gether, if all had been conferred upon him, would not have proved 
 him to have been really Jehovah, p. 145. The title narxar*i never given 
 to our Lord, but to the Father only, and the fathers of the three first 
 centuries considered it as bis peculiar and exclusive designation, p. 146. 
 Answer to the observation, that our Lord speaks of himself in such terms, as 
 brought upon him alone, of all the inspired messengers of Heaven, the charge 
 of blasphemy for making himself equal with God. Nothing :-hews the weak- 
 ness of the Trinitarian cause so much, as endeavouring to prove what our 
 Lord is, by the charges of his enemies against him. p. 146. He was as free 
 from the charges mads against him by the Jews, as from the Trinitarian 
 sentiments imputed to him in subsequent times by his own mistaken followers. 
 He never claimed, however, equality with God, nor did the Jews charge him 
 with it, but only with justifying his violation of the Sabbath by the example 
 of God ; in that respect making himself like God : but if the Jews had de- igned 
 to impute the former to him, his reply, acknowledging the most marked infe- 
 riority, shews it to have been ajalse charge, p. 147. Observations on John v. 
 20. Explanation of the meaning of all things which the Father doeth, and 
 which he shewed tq the Son, exemplified by 1 John ii. 20, must be limited, 
 for be was to be shewed greater works than these. What these greater works 
 were, stated by our Lord in terms strongly expressive of inferiority and sub- 
 jection; acknowledging that the future judgment had been committed lohim, 
 and therefore that the authority was not originally his own ; that be was to be 
 honoured as the Father was honoured, only because this authority was com- 
 mitted to him. p. 148. He states that his having life in himself, and having 
 authority to execute judgment, were his Father's gifts, consequently they 
 might have been withheld ; that this authority was not given to him because 
 he was the divine Logos, but because he was the son of man, adding, that of 
 himself he could do nothing. John v. 30. p. 150. Plain, that if the Jews meant 
 to impute to him the making of himself equal with God, the charge was a 
 false charge, and his answer a complete refutation of it. What it more pro- 
 bably was, p. 151. What he represented himself to be, not to be proved by 
 the charges made against him by false accusers, who were his enemies, but 
 by what he said of himself. In John x. 33, they did charge him with 
 blasphemy, for making himself God, or a God ; but there also it appears to 
 hare been a false charge, and would not have amounted to blasphemy had it 
 been true. Had these false accusations even proceeded wholly from igno- 
 rance, we are uot to take the ignorant for our instructors. Our Lord's opi- 
 nion of them and their leaders, p. 153. The law of blasphemy, as understood 
 by the Jews, of a very undefined character. Not necessary for a man to make 
 himself God, or to speak against God, to incur it ; nor was our Lord the only 
 inspired messenger who did incur it. p. 154. It is admitted, that to under- 
 stand the evangelists and apostles, we should consider them as men full of
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Old Testament ideas. In the Old Testament, however, we find every where 
 clear, plain, and numerous declarations of the divine unity, but not a syl- 
 lable about the Trinity. Enumeration of passage?, in which Old Testament 
 ideas concerning the nature of the Supreme Being are conveyed ; such as 
 "Hear, O Israel! Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah," &c. p. 154. Such 
 are the declarations of the Supreme Being, the Great Jehovah himself, 
 clearly and repeatedly inculcating the divine unity; and such are the Old 
 Testament ideas, of which the evangelists and apostles must have been full, 
 and not of Trinitarian idea, which are no where to be found in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Those are some of the most important things, which God spoke to the 
 Jewish fathers by the prophets; and as the apostle informs us, Heb. i. 1, 2, 
 that it was the FATHER who spoke to them by the prophets, this excludes the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit. It appears, that he, the Supreme FATHER, has de- 
 clared, that he is one Jehovah, that he is God, that there is none else beside. 
 him, that besides him there is no Saviour, that there is none like him, none 
 equal to him, none to be compared to him ; whilst the Trinitarians must 
 contend, that there are two others like him and equal to him; that 
 there are two other persons who are God beside him ; that there is another 
 Saviour beside him, who is more strictly a saviour than himself, p. 157. 
 pnfortunately for the Trinitarian cause, these are ideas no more to be found 
 in the New Testament, than in the Old. p. 1 58. The Divine appears to 
 shrink from further reference to the Greek Fathers, on finding their evidence 
 unfavourable. Being his witnesses, however, the author puts some questions 
 to them by way of cross-examination, and means to propose more. p. 158. 
 But the reason why Qt is anarthrous in John i. 1. is not because the 
 Greeks thus expressed the predicate of a proposition, in distinction from the 
 subject which has the article, p. 159. The evangelist knew of no such rule, 
 having only three verses lower written as an utter stranger to, and directly 
 contrary to it, if any such existed, John i. 4. He had another and a better 
 reason. He did not make the distinction without a difference. He knew full 
 well, when he wrote the first chapter, that our Lord himself had made the di- 
 stinction in the discourse, which he has recorded in his 10th chap, and followed 
 his example, p. 160. This supposed rule unknown alsotoSt. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 3, 
 and to the author of the book of Revelations. Rev. xix. 10 ; also to Eusebius, 
 who says, that the apostle might have prefix d the article to Qtts, as well 
 as Qia, if he had thought the Father and the Son to be one and the same, and 
 the Son to be God over all. p. 161. Origen expresses similar sentiments. 
 p. 163. Doing this would not have made it an identical proposition, for the 
 terms of the subject and predicate would have differedl Trinitarianism not to 
 be benefited by appealing to the rules of logic, p. 163. Texts quoted by the 
 Divine to shew that a Stot is applied to Christ, namely, John xx. 28. Heb. 1.8. 
 Rom.ix. 5, 2 Pet. i. 1, Tit. ii. 13, and iii. 4. The author had only said in his 
 former Letter, that hedidnotknow whereSs was applied to Christ. Hestill 
 does not, the texts quoted by the Divine nut proving it. In consequence of fur- 
 ther investigation, he thinks himself entitled to say, that '$ used absolutely
 
 XVI11 TABLB OF CONTENTS. 
 
 and without any qualification, is never applied to Christ, or any other person 
 than the Father, p. 1 64. Examination of John xx. 28, " O my Lord, and O my 
 God j" which is shewn not to answer the purpose it is cited for. p. 166. 
 Even laying the qualification out of the case, it would be no authority for 
 the applicatioh of i but to Christ. Reasons for believing 3 f in this text to 
 be in the vocative, and 9*at to be used in the inferior sense, p. 168. Emi- 
 nent critics have considered the passage to be a sudden exclamation, the for- 
 mer part of which only was addressed to Christ, and the latter to the Father. 
 Instance of a transition still more abrupt, 1 Sam. xx. 12. p. 169. Exa- 
 mination of Heb. i. 8. in the common \ ersion, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever 
 and ever." This text still more unfit for the Divine's purpose than the for- 
 mer. Different interpretations of it. Parallel passage from Ps. Ixxiii. 26. 
 p. no. Examination of Rom. ix. 5, in the common version, " of whom as 
 concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever." 
 This text still more exceptionable than either of the former, and why. Opi- 
 nions of eminent critics, and quotations from the Fathers, p. 172. Exa- 
 mination of Titus ii. 13, " Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious ap- 
 pearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ :" and 2 Pet. i. 1, 
 " Through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Both 
 these texts fall short of the point in question, and why. Ambiguous passages 
 to be construed by plain ones, and not obscuraper obscuriora. The Scriptures 
 not to be treated less fairly and rationally than other writings, p. 1 74. 
 Mr. Sharp and Dr. Middleton's system relative to the Greek article consi- 
 dered. Not at all to be depended upon ; and if it were, these texts might be 
 classed among the exceptions, p. 176. Another test applied to their rules, 
 namely, the writings of the fathers. Origen, Eusebius, and Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, could have known nothing of them. p. 178. Further remarks on 
 2 Pet. i. 1. p. 179. Examination of Tit iii. 4, " But after that the kindness 
 and love of our Saviour God towards mankind appeared." The article not pre- 
 fixed to 0t , and the words ' God our Saviour* are spoken of the Father, as 
 contradistinguished from the Son. Reasons why calling God our Saviour 
 and Jesus Christ our Saviour is no proof of identity, p. 1 80. The Divine 
 has failed in every text he has produced as proof of But being applied to 
 Christ, p. 182. The author has no difficulty where to find bis proofs of* Sut 
 being applied to the Father; but has to select a few, out of multitudes, in 
 every part of Scripture. ] John iv. 6-16. furnishes a complete constellation of 
 them, containing twenty-one clear, distinct, and undisputed instances in 
 eleven verses, of the term being applied to the Father, and what is more, at 
 contradistinguished from Christ. The author also cites John iii. 16, 17, 34, 
 Acts ii. 22, Id. 32, 33, Id. iii. 26, Rom. v. 10, Rom. viii. 3, 31, 32. p. 183. 
 He challenges the Divine to produce a single instance -where this term has 
 ever been clearly, unequivocally, and absolutely, applied to the Son, as in 
 those just quoted it is to the Father, p. 186. The strongest part of the 
 author's argument on the 10th chapter of John not touched, but left entirely 
 unanswered, the Divine having confined himself to a subordinate and collateral
 
 TABLE OF CONTENT*. XIX 
 
 point, p, 1 87. The Divine's objections to the author's remarks on the sanc- 
 tification of the Son by the Father, John x. 36, that it signifies ' setting apart 
 to a peculiar use.' Answer, that this must mean either a consecration to 
 such use, or a separation from other persons or things for such uses j the first 
 of which is shewn to be inconsistent with the Trinitarian hypothesis, and the 
 second impossible ; whilst upon Unitarian principles neither the one nor the 
 other occasions any difficulty at all. p. 188. That the apostles do not apply to 
 Jesus Christ wbat'Isaiah says, ' Sanctify the Lord of Hosts, and he shall be a 
 stumbling block to both houses of Israel.' No ground for the inference that 
 Christ is the Lord of Hosts. Examination of Is. viii. 13, Id. xxviii. 16, Ps. Ixix. 
 22,. Rom. ix. 23, 1 Pet. ii. 5-8. 'Sanctifying' used by Isaiah in the sense of 
 'honouring or glorifying, in which it is used also Numb. xx. 12, Lev. x. 3. 
 p. 190. The same subject continued. Absurdity of concluding, if the Lord 
 'of Hosts had been called a stumbling block, and our Saviour also a stumbling 
 block, that therefore they must have been one and the same, exemplified by- 
 applying the same rule to astronomy, p. 192. Proof from Rom. ix. 33, 
 Rev. ii. 14, that the Jews had other stumbling blocks, p. 194. The apostle 
 Paul, if he had designed, Rom. ix.31, 32, to represent Christ as the stum- 
 bling stone that was laid, designed to represent him as different from the Lord 
 of Hosts who laid it. p. 195. If the apostle Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 6, considered 
 Christ to be the stone he mentions, nothing more follows, than that Isaiah had 
 said that the Lord of Hosts should be for a stone of stumbling to both houses 
 of Israel ; and the apostle Peter says, that Christ had become a stone of 
 stumbling, which each might have been, the one under the old and the other 
 under the new dispensation, without their being the same. In fact, the 
 apostles say nothing about the Lord of Hosts, p. 195. The Divine states, 
 that our Lord stooped from a state of original dignity and glory, and placed 
 himself in a state of inferior condition to the Father, which accounts for his 
 saying ' the Father,' who never thus stooped, ' is greater than I.' The author 
 denies that there is any proof of this in the Scriptures, p. 197. These words 
 of our Lord declare him to be then inferior, and there is no allusion to any 
 antecedent or original dignity, much less equality, p. 199. The words prove, 
 that the Father was greater than our Lord, taking him as he then was, being, 
 upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, a person consisting of a divine nature equal 
 to the Father, and a human nature which must have made him something 
 more. Inconsistency of this shewn, p. 199. Still to be proved that he was 
 ever equal to the Father in any relation, p. 200. The Scriptures nowhere 
 declare that our I.ord had any original or underived glory. His own decla- 
 rations prove the contrary. John v. 19, 22, 26, 27, 30, Id. vii. 16, Id. xii. 
 49, Id. xiv. 10. p. 201. No proof furnished by John xvii. 5, that our Lord 
 had original glory, or even that he preexisted. Construction of the Greek 
 word <r*j*. p. 202. His glory not actually enjoyed before the world was, but 
 existed in the contemplation and counsel of God, proved by John viii. 56, 
 Rom. iv.17, Gen. xvii. 5, Rev. xiii. 8, Luke xx. 38, John xvii. 12. p. 203. 
 The passage Philipp. ii. quoted in favour of Trinitarian ism, gives St. Paul's
 
 36C TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 account of the state from which our Lord stooped, and will, if the author is 
 not mistaken, turn out upon examination to be decidedly hostile to that sy- 
 stem. The Greek text shews at the first glance, that it will admit of other 
 interpretations, at least equal, and in the author's judgment much superior, 
 to that of the common version, p. 204. First translation, supposing the inter- 
 pretation in the common version " thought it not robbery to be equal to," to 
 be correct, but rendering $ without the article, when applied toChrist, a God. 
 The moment the Father is introduced, he is at once called a Qut. p. 205. 
 Reasons for, and advantages of, thus rendering QMS without the article, p. 207 
 Meaning of being in the form of a God, considering the latter word to be 
 used in its inferior sense according to our Lord's own interpretation of it. The 
 apostle obviously considered him to have stooped from the state of a prophet 
 endued with miraculous powers, to that of a slave, p. 208. Objections to the 
 rendering of " thought it not robbery to be equal to." p. 209. Preferable 
 rendering of *ypy, a prey, and <, like. p. 209. Makes the passage con- 
 sistent,' and our Lord a pattern of perfect humility throughout. In what 
 manner he divested himself of the form of a God, and took upon him that of a 
 slave, p. 210. That it was voluntary on his part, and why. p. 21 1. -How he 
 might, according to his own account, have delivered himself, p. 212. No al- 
 lusion in this passage to a preexistent state, the whole relating to our Lord'* 
 voluntary humiliation when he delivered himself up. p. 212. Absurd conse- 
 quences of supposing that be humbled himself when in a preexistent state of 
 glory equal to that of the Father. The apostle appears to have had no idea of 
 it, nor of two natures in our Lord. p. 213. Other translations, instead of 
 ' thought it not robbery to be equal to God." p. 214. The rendering of urn 
 I*, by like God, or as God, exemplified by Job xi. 12, Id. xl. 15, Sept. 
 and vindicated from objections, p. 215. Rendering of fiyupen in the sense 
 of imaginar, which makes the passage ' did not imagine, or think of the robbery 
 to be equal to God.' Novatian seems to have understood the corresponding 
 Latin words in this sense. Quotation of the passage in which he says also, that 
 the Son never compared himself with the Father, and of another in which he 
 proves the Sou to be less than the Father, by his receiving sanctification from 
 him. p. 217. This a remarkable instance of a Trinitarian, when the Trinity 
 was not supposed to consist of three equal persons, quoting this very passage, 
 to prove the Son's inferiority, p. 218. Other proofs from Origenof the passage 
 being understood in ancient times in a sense the very opposite to that supposed 
 by wiodernTrinitarians. p. 219. Proof of Eusebi us having so understood it. p. 220, 
 and Hilary in a sense nearly similar, p. 221 Instances of the correspond* 
 ing Latin phrase having retained the true sense of the Greek, in times long 
 subsequent, p. 221. A text admitting of so many different interpretations, 
 unfit to be quoted as an authority, particularly as the Trinitarian interpretation 
 disturbs the sense, and contradicts the general scope of the writer, and there 
 are others perfectly rational and consistent, p. 222. Have any other writings 
 received such treatment as the Christian Scriptures from their Trinitarian 
 friends ? p. 223. There have been Trinitarians, however, j/bo have uuder-
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXl 
 
 stood the passage in a different sense, p. 223. It says nothing of any original 
 glory of our Lord, nor of his having received a new and peculiar glory in a new 
 nature, p. 224. Remarks on 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. Objection that the Son being 
 to give up his kingdom, and to be subject, implies that he is not subject now. 
 p. 224. Answer, that this is mere inference, which if it arises may always 
 be rebutted ; that the apostle has taken care that it shall not arise ; that he 
 is now a delegated king under the supreme sovereignty of the Father; that 
 when he has delivered up his kingdom, he will instead of a king be merely a 
 subject of the Father, illustrated by Matt. xx. 20-23. p. 225. The Divine's 
 description of the Father as holding in the scheme of redemption the office of 
 guardian of the rights of government in the universe, wholly unscriptural, as 
 is that of Christ's giving up the kingdom, by giving in an account of his ad- 
 ministration ; and also the Trinitarian notion, that when he shall have deli- 
 vered up his kingdom, the government of God, whether as Father, Son, or 
 Holy Spirit, shall be all in all. p. 227. This not the language of the evan- 
 gelists and apostles, but the contrary. The passage speaks of no one reigning 
 after this event, but the Father. It says nothing of the Son, but that he 
 shall be subject, arid of the Holy Spirit nothing at all. The two natures are 
 quite out of the question, p. 228. Absurdity of supposing that the Son, upon 
 the Trinitarian hypothesis, when in possession of all his glories, is to be subject 
 to his equal, p. 228. Three instances, mentioned by the Divine, of Unitari- 
 ans, and one of a Deist, having become Trinitarians, considered. Multitudes 
 of Trinitarians, many of them men of distinguished learning and talents, 
 who have joined the Unitarians, p. 229. The Deist perhaps educated a 
 Trinitarian, and may have used a Greek Testament containing more than 
 one spurious text, particularly 1 John v. 7. p. 230. The double view of 
 Christ, both as God and man, has no foundation in Scripture, and creates 
 difficulties, instead of solving them. First instance of this from Matt. xxiv. 
 36. p. 231. Second instance from John xvii. 1-3. p. 232. Third instance 
 from John xiv. 28. p. 233. Fourth instance from Matt, xx.20-23. p. 233. 
 The Divine having to avoid the imputation of contradiction and absurdity in 
 calling two persons one being, stated that Trinitarians understand the word 
 ' person' in a middle sense between the philosophical person, as a distinct and 
 complete being, and the political, as George king of Hanover, and George 
 king of England; that every thing in the Deity is sui generis ; and appearing 
 to consider him as speaking of himself as including three personal distinctions. 
 p. 234. The author replies, that this is an important step, and brings us to 
 the sy&tem of the Nominalists. Remarks on this system,'and those who have 
 advocated it, particularly Dr. Wallis. p. 235. The Doctor's statement of 
 three personal distinctions, with Mr. Belsham's remarks upon it as an Uni- 
 tarian doctrine, p. 237.. Queries by Mr. Yates, tending to shew its absur- 
 dity, p. 238. Inquiry when the word ' person,' is applied in Scripture to any 
 thing subsisting in the divine nature in the middle sense just mentioned, 
 p. 239. A trinity of three personal distinctions less open to the charge of contra- 
 diction than one of three distinct persons, or minds; but it is equally unscrip-
 
 XXU TABLE OF CONTENTS; 
 
 tural, and there is no reason why sucb subtle and perplexed doctrine* should 
 be forced upon us. p. 240. Extraordinary that the Divine should hesitate to 
 consider those who maintain the same sentiments as the author, Unitarians, 
 since, if they are not, none else can be. No objection to Trinitarians call* 
 ing themselves so in their sense of the word, if they please, p. 241. The 
 Unitarians prefer that name to Socinians, not out of disrespect to the two 
 Socini, who would have done honour to any sect; but because they mate- 
 rially differ from them in their doctrines, which the Unitarians have from the 
 Scriptures, p. 242. Unitarianism never completely extinguished. Faustus 
 Socinus found Unitarians in Poland when he went there, p. 242. We can 
 believe many things of which we have an imperfect idea ; but the less we 
 know of them, and the more extraordinary they appear, the stricter is the 
 proof we require of their existence, p. 243. Inquiry whether the text, 
 Mait.xxv'm. 1 9, " baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Spirit," be an early interpolation, p. 243. The context 
 reads just as smoothly, if not more so, without than with it. The ex- 
 trinsic evidence most strong against it. If sucb a command Lad been 
 delivered by our Lord, being one of his last, it would have been re- 
 garded as a most solemn law, of the greatest importance, binding to a strict 
 performance ; yet seven out of eight of the New Testament writers have 
 not only utterly neglected to make the least mention of it, but in all the in- 
 stances of baptism they have recorded, have entirely disobeyed it themselves, 
 or related its disobedience by others without any disapprobation ; which is 
 incredible, except on the supposition of this text being a subsequent interpo- 
 lation, all their baptisms appearing to have been in the name of our Lord 
 only. p. 244. Instances of this, with remarks on them : first from Acts ii. 
 38. p. 248- Second from Acts x. 48. p. 249. Third from Acts viii. 16. 
 p. 250. Fourth from Acts xix. 1-5. p. 252. The time arrived when such bap- 
 tisms came to be considered invalid ; but this was not in the days of the apo- 
 stles or their contemporaries ; on the contrary, whole bodies of Christians ap- 
 pear to have been baptized by them in the name of Christ, whilst not a -single 
 instance can be produced of any of them baptizing in the name ofj the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, p. 252. It would have been sufficient 
 to have shewn that there are objections to the passage sufficient to prevent it 
 from being pronounced to be indubitably genuine, to have made us hesitate to 
 receive it as proof of a doctrine which requires the highest degree of certainty 
 to establish it. p. 252. Supposing it, however, to be unquestionably authen- 
 tic, it is incapable of proving the doctrine of the Trinity. Whatever may be 
 meant by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it does not declare the two latter 
 to be God, or that all three are God, or that they are all equal, or all subsist 
 in the same substance, p. 253. That the baptizing into, or into the name of, a 
 person, means the same thing, and does not prove him to be God. Rom. vi. 
 3, Gal. iii. 27, Acts ii. 38, Acts x. 48, Id. viii. 16, Id. xix. 1-5, and 
 Ps. xx. 1,7. p. 254. Israelites baptized into Moses, and into the baptism of 
 John. p. 255. Baptism into the death of Christ p. 256. Baptism into a
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXIH 
 
 person or thing, means an avowal of belief in that person or thing. So under- 
 stood by many moderns, and by Hilary, p. 257. Baptizing, therefore, into 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no more proves the two latter 
 to be God, than the same thing proves Moses and John to be God. p. 258. 
 The joining of two or more persons in a form or ceremony, does not prove 
 them to be one, or equal, or, that if one is God, the others are. Exod. xiv. 31, 
 1 Sam. xii. 18, 1 Chron. xxix. 20, 1 Tim. v. 21. p. 258. That baptism into 
 the name, in the singular, and not names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 carries it no further. Luke ix. 26. p. 260. That they had no name common 
 to them all in Scripture. The name Trinity not to be found there, p. 261. 
 Joining the Holy Spirit, supposing it to be a power, with the Father and Son, 
 considering it as professing a belief in the existence of such power, not calcu- 
 lated to mislead, nor is there any impropriety in joining a mere power with a. 
 person. If the Holy Spirit was a person, John was guilty of a similar impro- 
 priety, Matt. iii. 2 ; and according to the Trinitarian mode of reasoning, both 
 the Holy Spirit and Fire might be proved to be persons, or loth mere quali- 
 ties or powers, p. 262. No instance to be found of the apostles imploring 
 benediction from three, p. 264. Consideration of 2 Cor.xiii. 4, as it affects this 
 question, p. 264. Mr. Yates's reason for regarding it as adverse to the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, p. 265. Remarks on Rev. i. 4, as adduced for the same 
 purpose. Is one of the strongest texts to shew the absurdity of concluding, 
 because persons are mentioned together, they must be one, or equal, or each 
 God if one is. p. 266. It is incredible that the writer of this book should 
 have often ascribed glory and praise to the Father and Son, and never to the 
 Holy Spirit, if he had thought it a person, and equally entitled to them as 
 either of them. p. 266. Not conceivable how the unity, equality, or godhead 
 of persons can be proved by our being commanded to reverence and obey 
 them. p. 268. Nothing like proof advanced of the Holy Spirit being a per- 
 son, or equal to the Father. Reason why, if it were a person, it could not be 
 omniscient, omnipotent, or a proper object of religious worship, p. 269. 
 Passage in which Lucian is supposed to have ridiculed the Christians for 
 making three one and one three, as early as the reign of Trajan, p. 270. 
 Had Lucian been the author of it, there would have been no reason for be- 
 lieving that its object was to ridicule the Christians, that is the body of 
 Christians, or that they then held the doctrine of the Trinity, p. 270. But 
 the Philopatris, in which it occurs, was not written by Lucian, nor till long 
 after his time, when the doctrine of the Trinity had made some progress, by 
 some unknown author, p. 272. But by whomsoever written, it has some awk- 
 ward features for a modern Trinitarian to deal with. p. 273. Passage from 
 Tertullian, proving that the doctrine of the Trinity was not held by the ma- 
 jority of Christians in his time, namely, half a century atjleast later than 
 Lucian. p. 274. Passages from Origen, who flourished somewhat later than 
 Tertullian, shewing that the same state of things continued in his time, and 
 confirming what has been considered the meaning of Tertullian. p. 276. 
 Curious caution of these writers, and to what causes to be ascribed, p. 279.
 
 XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 The great body of Christians in those days shocked at any thing inconsistent 
 with the monarchy of the Father; for which reason their refined speculations 
 were not calculated for the public ear, but were reserved for those who had 
 been privately initiated, p. 281. How the doctrine of the Trinity gradually 
 became predominant, after which there was no more caution on the part of its 
 advocate-, but they persecuted their opponents without mercy, p. 281. Tes- 
 timony of the fathers of great weight upon matters of fact, particularly if 
 militating against their particular opinions, which, shocking as they then ap- 
 peared to the great body of Christians, were much less so than those which 
 succeeded them, their Trinity consisting of three unequal persons, of whom the 
 Father was supreme, p. 282. We have therefore the joint testimony of them 
 and of the great body of Christians, 1 st, that the Trinity was not then the belief 
 ofjht Christians ; and 2dly, that such a Trinity as is now believed, was not the 
 belief of themselves, the learned and philosophical Christians ; in opposition 
 to which, the passage in question, even if written by Lucian, would have been 
 of no value, but, considered as written by no one knows whom, or when, or 
 where, sinks into complete insignificance, p. 283. What such proofs re- 
 semble, p. 283. Conclusion, p. 284.
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO A 
 
 PROTESTANT DIVINE. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 MY DEAR SIR, 
 
 M.Y being at present so near to you, brings again 
 to my recollection that I ought to return you many 
 thanks for the letter you did me the favour to write 
 to me about a year ago, which I have often intended 
 to answer, but have, been involved in such a variety 
 of business as to have scarcely had sufficient time 
 left even for the most necessary correspondence. 
 
 I feel much indebted to you for the kind concern you 
 express at my having fallen into what appear to you 
 to be dangerous errors, upon some subjects connected 
 with our common religion as Christians ; alluding to 
 the sentiments I expressed relative to the nature of 
 Christ, when I had last the pleasure of your company 
 in Town ; and particularly to my quoting the passage 
 from the beginning of the thirtieth to the end of the 
 thirty-sixth verse of the tenth chapter of St. John 
 which has been frequently cited in favour of the Tri-
 
 2 J - 
 
 nitarian hypothesis as furnishing in my judgement 
 strong evidence of the contrary doctrine. In this passage 
 our Saviour havingpreviously stated thathehad power 
 to lay down his life, and take it again ; that he had 
 received this commandment from his Father; that the 
 works he did in his Fathers name bore witness of him ; 
 that his Father who had given his sheep to him was 
 greater than all, and that no one was able to pluck them 
 out of his Father's hand says, " I and my Father are 
 one," (Iv) in the neuter gender in the original, meaning 
 one thing, or one and the same thing; and note/;, mean- 
 ing one God or one person. Upon this the Jews who 
 are frequently represented as either misconceiving our 
 Saviour's meaning from gross ignorance, or as design- 
 edly misrepresenting it took up stones to stone him : 
 upon which he says, "Many good works have I shewed 
 you from my Father ; for which of those works do ye 
 stone me ?" To which the Jews reply, " For a good 
 work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy ; and be- 
 cause that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (in 
 the original SEQV, God, or a god). Our Saviour an- 
 swers, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are 
 gods ? If he. called them gods, to whom the word of 
 God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ; say 
 ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent 
 into the world,, Thou blasphemest ; because I said I 
 am the Son.oi God ?" From this, last answer I stated, 
 that it appeared to me to be manifestly our Sjaviour's 
 meaning If I had called myself God, or a; god, I
 
 should have been justified by your own Scriptures, in 
 which those prophets and holy men of old, to whom 
 the word of God came, are called gods. But I did no 
 such thing ; I only said that I was the son of God ; 
 and do you charge me with blasphemy for this ? 
 
 In the letter you were so good as to send me, you 
 state, that the word of God which came to the prophets 
 of old was the Eternal Logos, meaning the second per- 
 son in the Trinity, i. e. our Saviour himself. But there 
 appear to me to be most weighty objections to this 
 opinion which by the way is opinion only : for if we 
 refer to the first verse of the first chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, in order to ascertain who it was, that 
 spoke by the prophets in times of old, before the advent 
 of our Saviour, and I would rather interpret Scrip- 
 ture by Scripture, than trust to the interpretations of 
 all the councils that were ever convened, or the em- 
 perors and popes who assembled them, and some- 
 times by force, and sometimes by fraud, influenced 
 their decisions, we shall find that it was God the 
 Father, and not the Son, that spoke to the fathers by 
 the prophets : for it is there declared, that God who 
 spoke to them by the prophets, hath in these last days 
 spoken to tts by his Son. Hence it is plain that Jesus 
 Christ is represented as the Son of that God, who 
 spoke to the fathers by the prophets. If therefore that 
 God, who spoke to the fathers by the prophets, was 
 the second person in the Trinity, the Eternal Logos, 
 and Jesus Christ be God, there must be a quaternity 
 (if I may use such an expression) instead of a Trinity. 
 
 B2
 
 It appears strange to me, that the word of any being 
 should, because personified in figurative language, at 
 last be supposed to designate one person, whilst the 
 Being whose word it was, was considered to be 
 another. In the fourth chapter of the first book of 
 Samuel, ver. 1, are the words, "And the word of 
 Samuel came to all Israel," which is a parallel expres- 
 sion to that alluded to. But it seems to me, that it 
 would be most absurd to conclude, that Samuel was 
 one person, and his logos (or word) another person. 
 
 Independently of the decisions of popes and coun- 
 cils, I should understand * the word of God came to a 
 person ' to mean, that his command, or precept, or 
 some revelation of his will, was communicated to that 
 person, and nothing more. This appears to me to be 
 a plain and rational interpretation, such as the words 
 not only warrant, but evidently require ; and there- 
 fore there seems to me to be no reason why we should 
 travel out of the record in quest of another. Though 
 I consider it to be clear from our Saviour's answer, that 
 the Jews had totally misapprehended his meaning, or 
 wilfully misrepresented it in the passage in question ; 
 no stress whatever could have been laid upon their 
 using the word 'blasphemy,' had they understood him 
 to mean, as he states he did, that he was the Son of 
 God; it being apparent according to Scripture phraseo- 
 logy, that blasphemy might not only be spoken of 
 God, and of his holy prophets and messengers ; but 
 also of kings and other persons in high stations. 
 Thus in the twenty-first chapter of the first book
 
 of Kings, ver. 13, "And there came in two men, 
 children of Belial, and sat before him : and the men 
 of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, 
 in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did 
 blaspheme God and the king.' 1 ' This was a public 
 accusation before all the people, .and consequently it 
 is evident that it was well understood, not only by the 
 men of Belial but by all the people, that blasphemy 
 might be spoken not only of God, but of the king 
 also ; and that the word was at that time used merely 
 in the sense of speaking evil of God or of any exalted 
 persons among men, whatever notions we in modern 
 times have been accustomed to annex to it. 
 
 If we are content to interpret Scripture by Scripture, 
 and will admit that we cannot have a better guide 
 than our Saviour himself, as to what he means by the 
 expression of ' he and his Father being one' (Iv), we 
 shall not be long at a loss : for in the seventeenth 
 chapter of the same evangelist, ver. 11, we have this 
 petition offered up by our blessed Lord himself: 
 " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those 
 whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as 
 we are." From this passage, in my humble concep- 
 tion, it is undeniable, that our great Master designed 
 to pray, that his disciples might be one in the very 
 same sense that he and his Father were one. And in 
 what sense could this be but that as he and his Fa- 
 ther were one in sentiment, were united in the same 
 grand scheme for the salvation and benefit of all man-, 
 kind, so might also his disciples ?
 
 Some of the following verses explain with equal 
 clearness, as it strikes me, what our Saviour meant in 
 these and other places, by ' his Father sending him 
 into the world ;' and that it did not mean sending him 
 into this material world from some other place, but 
 merely sending him with a divine commission among 
 the people to preach to them. The words are, ver. 
 18, " As thou hast sent me into the world, even so 
 have I also sent them, into the world ;" shewing that 
 he had sent them into the world, as he had been sent 
 into the world himself by his Father. 
 
 So the 21st and 23d verses shew most plainly, that 
 when he declares that ( he is in the Father and the 
 Father in him,' he does not mean to identify his be- 
 ing with that of the Father ; but that his disciples 
 might also be in him and he in them, in the very 
 same manner. And as it could not have been his de- 
 sign to represent that his disciples were one being with 
 himself, so neither are we entitled to conclude, when 
 he makes use of parallel expressions, that he meant 
 to denote that he was one being with his Father. 
 
 Having no books to consult, but an English Bible 
 and a Greek Testament, I have not perhaps done 
 so much justice to the subject, as most other men 
 would. My principal object has been to evince, that 
 I have not hastily taken up opinions without weighing 
 and considering them ; and that if I have adopted 
 such as are erroneous, it has not been for want of 
 diligently searching for, and endeavouring to discover, 
 the truth: but here we see as through a glass darkly;
 
 the time will arrive when we shall obtain more com- 
 plete information, and whose opinions will then be 
 found to be correct God only knows. In the mean 
 time, let all who acknowledge the same great Master 
 obey his divine precept of loving one another. What- 
 ever sect they belong to, let them consider themselves 
 as Catholics in the proper sense of the word members 
 of that universal church which he has established, 
 doing each other all the good they can, though their 
 sentiments in many respects may differ, and thinking 
 and judging candidly and kindly of each other. This 
 I am persuaded is the case with yourself: I wish it 
 were so with all. It was, I am sure, a very friendly 
 wish for my welfare that dictated your letter, and I 
 am much obliged to you for it; though I cannot help 
 thinking, that neither those who are of your opinion, 
 nor those who agree with me in mine, will be in any 
 danger, if they use due diligence in the pursuit of 
 truth, and live up to that share of it, which God, in 
 the exercise of their honest endeavours to know his 
 will and to please him, shall think fit to favour them 
 with. I find but one creed in the New Testament That 
 Jesus is the Christ. All that has been added to it is 
 mere human invention : and we all know what a mass 
 has been superinduced, partly by mistaken, and partly 
 by mischievous, and wicked, characters, since the first 
 promulgation of the Gospel. 
 
 I am, my dear sir, yours, &c.
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 T/; ..* - /. 
 HE nature of our respective avocations is such, as 
 
 necessarily to subject our correspondence to very long 
 intervals. Your last letter did not reach me, till a 
 very considerable time had intervened after the wri 
 ting of mine, to which it was. an answer ; and unfor- 
 tunately this, from unavoidable accidents, follows it at 
 a still greater distance, notwithstanding I have fre- 
 quently proposed to myself to reply to it long before 
 this time. 
 
 Though I happen to remain unconvinced by the 
 arguments you have favoured me with, that my con- 
 struction of the passage, John x. ver. 27-36, is erro- 
 neous, it has afforded me much gratification to learn 
 what could be advanced upon the subject, by learning 
 and ingenuity such as yours. I am aware, that some 
 of the Greek fathers, after the doctrine of the Trinity 
 had made considerable progress, pressed into their 
 service the words of the 30th verse, " I and my Fa- 
 ther are one" (I*/), to shew that they were one being, 
 or one God ; and you say that they must have under-
 
 9 
 
 stood their language better than we do. After re- 
 marking, that a very long period had elapsed before 
 this construction was attempted to be put upon them, 
 or any endeavour was made to shew from them that 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction, I 
 shall observe, that even contemporaries which none 
 of these fathers were do not always correctly inter- 
 pret works written in their vernacular tongue ; but on 
 the contrary are frequently mistaken, and often ad- 
 vance arguments fpr their respective opinions, which 
 so nearly balance each other, that it is very difficult 
 to determine on which side the scale preponderates. 
 
 We lawyers can furnish hundreds of instances of 
 this kind in the construction of modern acts of par- 
 liament, which are usually drawn by professional cha- 
 racters, men of learning and experience, well acquaint- 
 ed with their own language, and whose object it is to 
 render the acts they draw as clear, and their meaning 
 as certain, as possible : yet when it is necessary to re- 
 duce them into practice, and to decide upon their con- 
 struction, we have often not only one counsel and 
 one judge against another, but even different courts 
 differing in opinion from each other upon the con- 
 struction of the same sentence. You would be asto- 
 nished to hear how many hundreds of judicial deter- 
 minations there have been h9w many conflicting, 
 and clashing, opinions and authorities, to determine 
 t]ie meaning of three acts of parliament, passed in the 
 reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James the First,
 
 10 
 
 relative to bankrupts, and to the relief of the poor ; 
 some of them in the very reigns in which these acts 
 were passed, and others in our own times, though we 
 do not live at a more remote period since their enact- 
 ment, than the fathers you allude to did after the pub- 
 lication of the Gospel of St. John. Is it any wonder 
 then, that the meaning of one of the fishermen of Ga- 
 lilee, writing in a language which was not his mother- 
 tongue, should have been sometimes doubted, and 
 sometimes misunderstood, by writers following him 
 at the distance of two or three centuries ? that learned 
 and ingenious persons, many of them recently con- 
 verted from paganism, and eager to introduce their 
 preconceived notions and opinions into Christianity, 
 the simplicity of which they had begun to corrupt in 
 the very days of the apostles, as the latter themselves 
 lament, should by degrees, in the course of two or 
 three centuries, have succeeded in the opinions of a 
 considerable part of their readers, many of them si- 
 milarly circumstanced with themselves., in putting con- 
 structions upon several passages in the sacred writings, 
 which the apostolic writers themselves never intended ? 
 Is it not rather matter of surprise that these writers 
 should have expressed themselves with so much sim- 
 plicity and clearness, frequently upon subjects in them- 
 selves abstruse and difficult, that by comparing one 
 part of their writings with another, and applying to 
 them the same rules of fair, and just, criticism, which 
 we do to dther ancient writings, we should be able to
 
 11 
 
 ascertain their meaning so well, as in ninety-nine cases 
 out of a hundred we find we do, and in so many in- 
 stances to detect, and repudiate, the false glosses, and 
 erroneous opinions, which these fathers had fastened 
 upon them ? 
 
 In the profession of the law we have a rule, which 
 appears to me to be a very sensible and judicious one, 
 namely, To interpret, whenever it is in our power, one 
 part of an act of parliament by another ; and when 
 we can ascertain, by the context or otherwise, the 
 sense in which any given words are made use of by 
 the legislature in one part of an act, to conclude, un- 
 less the contrary appears, that they intended to make 
 use of them in the same sense in other parts of it ; or, 
 if the words do not occur in any other parts of the 
 same act, we endeavour to discover in what sense they 
 are used in other acts made in pari materia. Pur- 
 suing this course, which is not only sanctioned by 
 legal experience, but by the principles of sound criti- 
 cism, it appeared to me, that we could not do better 
 than to interpret the Scriptures by the Scriptures, and 
 particularly each Scripture writer, and teacher, by him- 
 self, where it was in our power ; as this would enable us 
 to arrive at their meaning with quite as much cer- 
 tainty, as any of the fathers, who happened to live two 
 or three hundred years after their publication. 
 
 Granting that some of these fathers, to support 
 their own opinions, should have interpreted lv, as 
 meaning one being or deity, though not so expressed,
 
 12 
 
 and that it would Lear this construction ; yet this would 
 be a mere conjecture of their own, not depending upon 
 any particular knowledge of the Greek language : and 
 there being no doubt at all, that it will also bear the 
 construction of one thing, because it is actually used 
 in that sense continually, and it is the most obvious 
 and natural sense, the question will immediately 
 arise, in which of these senses our Saviour used it, or, 
 which is the same thing, the corresponding term in the 
 language he spoke in. You state, that my rendering 
 (meaning the latter) cannot at all be admitted as 
 proper for a creature like ourselves, as Jesus is sup- 
 posed^to be, to say ' I and the Deity are one thing :' 
 and yet if we turn to the seventeenth chapter of the 
 samegospel, ver. 1 1, we find our Saviour, notonly using 
 the very same words again, but alluding to his former 
 use of them, and applying them as perfectly proper 
 to creatures like ourselves : " Holy Father, keep 
 through thine own name those whom thou hast given 
 me, that they may be one (Iv), as we are." Now it is 
 so manifest, that it is impossible to doubt it, that our 
 Saviour could not by lv here mean one being, but 
 one thing; inasmuch as all his disciples could not 
 constitute one being ; for which reason it is obvious, 
 that he could only design to use the word, meaning 
 one thing, in a figurative sense in both places, as we 
 speak of very intimate friends, or of man and wife, 
 or principal and agent, whose interests, sentiments, 
 and pursuits are the same ; that they are one, or one
 
 13 
 
 and the same thing, denoting unity of design and 
 sentiment, though not of person or of being : and 
 he prays that his disciples may be one, or one and the 
 same thing, as he and his Father were one, or one 
 and the same thing ; shewing that he used the word 
 in the same sense as applied to both ; from which it 
 follows, that he and his Father were one and the same 
 thing in the same sense that he prayed that his disci- 
 ples might be one ; and consequently were not one in 
 being or in deity, but one in design and purpose. 
 This is so extremely plain, and depends so little upon 
 any niceties of language, but upon the obvious nature, 
 and tendency of the expressions themselves, in what- 
 ever language they are proposed to us, that the con- 
 jectures of these good fathers that the design of the 
 speakers was different will have but little weight 
 with any one who will be at the trouble of forming a^ 
 judgement for himself. Nor must it be supposed that 
 there were not in their times persons as conversant in 
 the language as themselves, who put quite a different 
 construction upon the words, as will be shewn here- 
 after. 
 
 But to return to the words of our Saviour, which, 
 whether for the explanation of his meaning, or for 
 any other purpose, are of more importance than the 
 opinions of all the fathers put together, we find at 
 ver. 20 : " Neither pray I for these alone, but for 
 them also which shall believe in me through their 
 word j that they all may be one (!v), as thou, Father,
 
 14 
 
 art In me, and I in thee, that they also may be one (ly) 
 in us : that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
 And the glory which thou gavestwze, I have given them ; 
 that they may be one '(!?), even as we are one (!)." 
 
 It has been sometimes urged, that our Lord's di- 
 vinity is proved by * his being in the Father, and the 
 Father in him :' but from this passage it appears de- 
 monstrably, that such is not the meaning, as he re- 
 quests that his disciples may be also in his Father. 
 
 The nature of the glory which his Father had given 
 him, probably the power of working miracles, or of 
 cooperating with his Father in his great plan for the 
 deliverance of mankind from the dominion of sin and 
 death, has been also misunderstood ; for he informs 
 us, that the very same glory had been communicated 
 by him to them. It is observable likewise, that he 
 mentions every thing he had, as having been given to 
 him by his Father; and claims nothing, nor seems to 
 have been conscious of having any thing, in his own 
 right, or from the Holy Ghost : for when he says in 
 another place, " I have power to lay down my life, 
 and have power to take it up again ;" in order to ex- 
 clude all idea of his having such power originally, or 
 independently of the Father, he immediately adds, 
 "This commission I have received from my Father;" 
 meaning evidently, that his authority was delegated and 
 Subordinate, exercised by virtue of a commission, 
 or, as the common version renders it still more strong- 
 ly, a command, received from a superior.
 
 15 
 
 After a mature consideration of all this, I am at a 
 loss to conceive why it should be improper for our 
 blessed Lord, though originally a man like ourselves, 
 to say, ( I and the Deity are one thing, or one and the 
 same thing,' when he expressly states, that they were 
 so in the very same sense in which he prayed that all 
 his disciples also might be one thing. And I cannot 
 coincide in opinion with you, that unless the words 
 be taken in what is called the Orthodox sense, they 
 do not suit the train of his argument, as it appears 
 to me that they suit it exactly. He had before said, 
 " I give to my sheep eternal life, and they shall never 
 perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand;" 
 and he assigns as a reason for no one's plucking them 
 out of his hand, " my Father who gave them me is 
 greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out 
 of my Father's hand : I and my Father are one, v or 
 one and the same thing. The meaning of which is 
 clear upon ray construction, namely, My Father, out 
 of whose hand no one is able to pluck the sheep, hav- 
 ing given them to me, and being united with me in 
 the same plan for their preservation, the plucking 
 them out of my hand would be one and the same 
 thing with plucking them out of his, which no one 
 can do. 
 
 We are both agreed that our blessed Lord did not, 
 and could not, use the word sfg (because it could not 
 be his intention) to represent his Father and himself 
 as one person. Our difference is upon the word Iv,
 
 16. 
 
 which I am content to take as it stands, but which 
 you interpret by introducing the words, TO Stiov, under 
 a videlicet, as being to be understood, without any 
 thing in the context to support it, these words not 
 having been previously made use of in the whole of 
 this discourse. The introduction of them is not 
 only begging the question, but contrary to all rules 
 of construction, to all the hiternal evidence, and to all 
 probability. One would suppose from this singular 
 construction, that the words TO Snov were in familiar 
 use with our blessed Lord, and that having used them 
 just before, he intended that they should be under- 
 stood again in this passage ; but how great would be 
 the astonishment of a stranger to these discussions 
 to be informed, that neither our Lord in any of his 
 discourses, nor the evangelist in any of his writings, 
 has ever used the word Sucv at all ; but that our Lord 
 a little further on in the same gospel, having again 
 used the disputed word Jy, has referred to his previous 
 use of it, and shewn that he used it in both places in 
 a sense that would not admit of the interposition of 
 the word Ssiov ! 
 
 You say, that we are only assured of our preserva- 
 tion by the power of Christ, from the consideration 
 that he is one in power and authority with the Father. 
 If nothing more is meant by this, than the kind of 
 unity mentioned above, I subscribe to it ; but if it be 
 meant, that he has any proper power or authority of 
 his own, I must dissent, as it is contrary to the gene-
 
 17 
 
 ral tenor of the sacred writings, and to his own ex* 
 press declarations, which represent his power as given 
 to him, and all his authority as delegated. He ex- 
 pressly says, " Of mine own self I can do nothing." 
 " My Father, who dwelleth in me, he doth the works." 
 How many illustrious prophets, and chiefs, had the 
 mighty God invested with power to save and preserve 
 the Israelites and others, before the coming of our 
 Saviour ! and what was to prevent him from enduing 
 this greatest of the prophets, whom he has raised 
 from the dead, and made a prince, a ruler, and a judge* 
 over all mankind, with power to save and preserve 
 them, both in the present world, and also in that future 
 world, in which " he hath given him authority to 
 reign, and to execute judgement;" though that power, 
 notwithstanding it might be called in one sense his, 
 when it had been given to him, is wholly delegated, 
 and in strictness the power of the Father ; and he is 
 not one in power and authority with the Father, any 
 otherwise than as acting as his agent, and cooperating 
 with him in the accomplishment of his glorious de- 
 signs and purposes ? Who shall limit Omnipotence, 
 and say that he could not communicate such power 
 to any of his creatures ? 
 
 The next passage in your letter is as follows. " The 
 same remark concerning the Greek fathers applies to 
 your criticism on the absence of the article, which 
 they considered no evidence of the reading * a God/ 
 nor was it ever urged against them when the Greek 
 
 article was better understood than it is now. Indeed 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 the English mode of rendering it entirely anarthrous, 
 God, is a fairer interpretation of the Greek than yours 
 of a God ; for the intention of the Greek writer was 
 to express a meaning different from the God, that is, 
 the God of some particular people." Now really, 
 my dear sir, when it is considered that these fathers, 
 and the councils of which they were members, in 
 conjunction with the sovereigns of those days, per- 
 secuted the ancient Unitarians, who were their oppo- 
 nents, and have taken care to prevent their writings 
 from coming down to us, of which we know little or 
 nothing, -but what their adversaries have thought fit 
 to notice in their answers to them, it is rather a strong 
 assertion, that any particular objection was never urged 
 against them, when it may have been done hundreds 
 of times, without our knowing it ; and it may very 
 well have happened with them, as it sometimes does 
 with controversial writers in our own times, that, find- 
 ing things urged against them with so much strength, 
 as to preclude any prospect of a satisfactory answer, 
 they pass them, sometimes possibly by accident and 
 sometimes by design, sub silentio, and proceed to 
 other parts of their adversary's work which promise 
 them greater success. 
 
 Your own letter furnishes a striking instance of 
 the imperfect representations we may suppose to have 
 been given by the trinitarian fathers of the writings, 
 and arguments, of their antagonists, the Unitarians, 
 as you have, by pure accident I have no doubt, taken 
 no notice of what I considered the strongest part of
 
 my argument, as I shall shew hereafter ; and a per- 
 son who should see no other part of our correspon- 
 dence than your letter, would suppose that I had never 
 urged it. 
 
 One would think too, that we were in the present day 
 so ignorant of the Greek language, as to know little, or 
 nothing, of the use of the Greek article, and were unable 
 to translate correctly such passages in their writers, as 
 depend for their construction upon the insertion or 
 omission of it ; but those who are conversant in Greek 
 literature do not represent the state of it to be such. 
 We have a great number of their very best writers re- 
 maining, and have the means of judging, as we do by 
 consulting good writers in our own language, in what 
 manner, and in what senses, they used their article, and 
 how they were to be understood when they inserted or 
 omitted it before a noun. To prove, however, that 
 &i$$ with the article was not applicable to Christ, but 
 to God the Father only, in the opinion of a very 
 learned Christian writer who flourished not only when 
 the Greek was a living language, and all the niceties 
 belonging to it perfectly understood, but I believe 
 nearer to the age of the apostles than any of the wri- 
 ters you allude to, I shall produce evidence from the 
 writings of one of the fathers themselves. Thus in 
 Origen's Com. vol. ii. p.47*, you will find that he says, 
 " KSKTSOV yctp avToig on TOTS JJLSV <xvTo9fog 6 &*9 
 
 * Huetius's edit. vol. ii. p, 46, 47- 
 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 oiOTrig KOII o (rwryptpqa-iv sv ry Trpog TOV Ttcntpct ft)%>j. ivct yi- 
 
 VUCrJCMO-l CTSTOV [JLOVOVOthYl9lVOV$OV'7r<XV$STO TTapaTO 
 050$ [ASTO'ftYl TVjg SKSIVX S'SOT^TOf S^^OTTOIOV^SVOV, OUK 
 
 s og xvgiurspov av Xsyoirc u TrotvTug o 
 KTi<rsug, CCTS Trpurog TU Trpoj TOV Bsov stvcxt" 
 
 Here you will perceive, that this learned writer, and 
 very early father, expressly declares, that he who is 
 God of himself is o Ssog, that is, God with the article, 
 and applies this to the Father in the words of our 
 Saviour, who calls him the only true God. He then 
 further says, But every one who is not God of him- 
 self, being made God by the participation of his divine 
 nature, is not to be called o Stog, that is, God with 
 the article, but Bsog, that is, God without the article ; 
 amongst whom he particularly specifies Christ, the 
 first born of every creature. Clemens Alexandrinus 
 and Eusebius also advert to the insertion of the ar- 
 ticle in the one place, and the omission of it in the 
 other, and explain it in a similar manner. 
 
 I believe it will be found, that the general tenor of 
 the Scripture writings supports the construction .of 
 these learned authors ; for though Seog without the 
 article is frequently applied to God the Father, yet 
 o Ssog with the article is usually, for any thing I know, 
 universally, (where no particular heathen god is men- 
 tioned or referred to,) applied to God the Father only; 
 and seemingly for the best of all possible reasons, par 
 excellence (as the French say), to distinguish him from 
 all others, to whom the word has been applied in an
 
 21 
 
 inferior and less strict sense of it, as the God, or the 
 only God; whilst as to our Saviour and other persons, 
 for there are many in the Scriptures to whom it 
 would be easy to refer, who are designated by the word 
 Ssof, the term being often used in a lower sense, to 
 denote prophets, magistrates, and rulers, it is ap- 
 plied to them without the .article; and in the passage 
 of St. John now in dispute, where our Saviour in- 
 timates, that the word might without impropriety 
 have been applied to himself, as it had been to God's 
 prophets and messengers of old, it is used without 
 the article. 
 
 Suppose, for instance, that Moses was one of those 
 prophets to whom the word * God ' had been applied in 
 the Jewish Scriptures, and our Saviour's remark had 
 been, Is it not written in your law, I said to Moses Thou 
 art 3 sag (without the article), would not any one 
 translating this into a modern language, which pos- 
 sesses an indefinite, as well as a definite article, as 
 the English language for instance, which has in this 
 respect an advantage over the Greek, supply the in- 
 definite article, and render it l a God?' In reality, the 
 meaning is so clearly to be collected from the context, 
 that it is useless for this purpose to enter further 
 into the consideration of any supposed niceties in the 
 construction of the Greek article : and after all, I 
 think you will find by reference to my letter, that my 
 rendering was 'God,' intimating only in a parenthesis 
 that in the original it was &oc, God, or a God, in the
 
 22 
 
 disjunctive, without putting any construction of my 
 own upon it. 
 
 The criticism, therefore, which has occurred, as 
 founded upon any supposed rendering of mine, is 
 inapplicable : but as, by inadvertence probably, you 
 so considered it, and have entered largely upon the 
 'subject, I have availed myself of the opportunity of 
 making some remarks upon it. The only thing to 
 be regretted is, that this criticism upon the use of 
 the article has possibly occasioned you to pass over 
 without any observation at all, what constitutes the 
 strength of my argument; namely, that as soon as 
 our Saviour had said " I and my Father are ly" (one 
 thing, according to the literal translation of it), the 
 Jews, who are frequently represented as either mis- 
 conceiving his meaning from gross ignorance, or as 
 designedly misrepresenting it, took up stones to stone 
 him ; upon which he says, " Many good works have I 
 shewed you from my Father; for which of these do ye 
 stone me ? " To which the Jews reply, " For a good 
 work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and 
 because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (in 
 the original Ssov, God, or a God). Our Saviour an- 
 swers, " Is it not written in your law, I said ye are 
 Gods ? If he called them Gods to whom the word of 
 God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, say ye 
 of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into 
 the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the 
 Son of God ? " From this last answer I stated, that it
 
 23 
 
 appeared to me to be manifestly our Saviour's mean- 
 ing If I had called myself God, or a God, I should 
 have been justified by your own Scriptures, in which 
 those prophets and holy men of old, to whom the word 
 of God came, are called Gods (S'sot) : but I did no 
 such thing ; I only said I was the Son of God, And do 
 you charge me with blasphemy for this ? To what I 
 then observed, I shall here add, that I will venture to 
 say that no human mind, not previously full of the 
 trinitarian hypothesis, or of some of the notions that 
 led to it, making our Saviour in some sense a God who 
 had pre-existed before he came into the world, would 
 ever have drawn from this passage the strange con- 
 clusion, that by saying that he and his Father were 
 one thing (jy), lie intended to convey the meaning that 
 he and his Father were one God, or one and the same 
 Deity, contrary to his own express declaration, that he 
 considered the Jews to be imputing blasphemy to him, 
 and taking up stones to stone him, because he said he 
 was the Son of God. I should think it utterly im- 
 possible that any man living, not having a previous 
 bias upon his mind, reading our Saviour's expression 
 " I and my Father are one thing," and the Jews being 
 offended at it, a-nd his own subsequent application of 
 what he considered them to be offended about, would 
 ever have imagined that this illustrious teacher, who 
 had intimated to the Jews that they were mistaken in 
 supposing that he had meant to call himself God, or 
 a God, when he only intended to say that he was the
 
 24 
 
 Son of God, designed to represent that be was the very 
 God whose Son he had declared himself to be, or that 
 he was one and the same Deity, or Being with him. 
 
 Though you state that some of the fathers shew, 
 from the use of the word Jj/, that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is not a contradiction, inasmuch as he does 
 not say two persons are g/V (one), but Iv, that is TC &:iw, 
 (one divine Being,) as they are pleased, without a tittle 
 of evidence, to explain it, I must take the liberty of 
 affirming, that to say that two persons are one being 
 is a flat contradiction. I suppose it will not be denied, 
 that a person is a being ; consequently two persons 
 must be two beings, and to say that two persons are 
 but one being is a palpable absurdity. So it would be 
 to say that two persons are one thing; except in figu- 
 rative language, in which sense it may be affirmed 
 with great beauty and propriety ; and in this way it 
 was evidently used in the passage in question, which, 
 as I have remarked already, is demonstrated by the 
 context, and by a similar use of the same form of ex- 
 pression by our Saviour himself twice in a subsequent 
 chapter, with an allusion to his former use of it. It 
 would be easy to make such a collection of most cu- 
 rious and ridiculous illustrations of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity from the writings of these good fathers, 
 shewing it likewise to have been, in their apprehen- 
 sion, so different a thing from the Trinity of modern 
 divines, as must convince every reflecting mind, that 
 they were by no means better qualified to explain the
 
 25 
 
 doctrines of that religion which they contributed so 
 largely to corrupt, than their successors in modern 
 times ; -or than they were to lay down what institutions 
 and discipline, rites and ceremonies, it was the design 
 of our Lord and his apostles to establish, in which we 
 are all agreed that they completely failed. 
 
 I cannot by any means agree with you, that what 
 you term the English mode, meaning the mode adopt- 
 ed in the common version, of rendering the word Ssov, 
 in the 33d verse, entirely anarthrous, God, is a fairer 
 interpretation of the Greek than mine of a God, for 
 the reason you mention, that it was the intention of 
 the Greek writer to express a meaning different from 
 the God, that is the God of some particular people : 
 and I am rather surprised that you did not perceive 
 that your argument isfelo de se; for it is quite clear, 
 that the word o &os (the God) is not used in any part 
 of this, or of the preceding or following chapter of St. 
 John to denote, or allude to, any God, but the God of 
 the Jews, with some of whom our Saviour was then 
 conversing. If therefore it was, as you represent, the 
 intention of the Greek writer to express a meaning 
 different from the God, that is from the God of a par- 
 ticular people, it was his design to express that the 
 Jews, when they charged Jesus with the making him- 
 self Ssov, (God, or a God,) meant that he made himself 
 something different from o Ssot,; the God of the Jew- 
 ish nation ; and if he did, then the rendering, that he 
 made himself a God, meaning a God different from
 
 26 
 
 the God of the Jews, is, it appears to me, by far the 
 best, if not the only proper, rendering into English. 
 But, as I have already remarked, these Jews were en- 
 tirely mistaken in their supposition, whatever it amount- 
 ed to, as our Saviour himself informed them ; and it 
 would be destructive of the trinitarian hypothesis, as 
 far as their opinion went, to have it believed, that they 
 considered our Saviour as representing himself to be 
 God different from o $so$, that is the God of the Jews. 
 In fact, there is not a shadow of evidence for suppos- 
 ing, that any heathen god was in the contemplation 
 of any of the speakers in this dialogue. Not only is 
 no such God men^ned, or alluded to, in this con- 
 versation, or in the preceding or subsequent two or 
 three chapters, so as to afford a colour of probability 
 that a similar allusion was intended here; but I know 
 not where to find any such allusion in the whole of 
 this writer's gospel ; added to which, our Saviour's 
 reply shews, that he did not consider them as having 
 alluded to any heathen god ; for he refers immediately 
 to some of their own prophets, who had been called 
 gods, saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye 
 are gods ? If he called those gods to whom the word 
 of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say 
 ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent 
 into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I 
 am the Son of God ?" meaning evidently, as I have 
 remarked already, that if he had made himself Seov, 
 (God, or a God,) he should have been justified by their
 
 27 
 
 own Scriptures in so doing, there being an inferior 
 sense of the word, in which the prophets of old, to 
 whom the word of God came, were called Ssoi (Gods). 
 Nowas these holy prophets are here called Ssoi, (Gods,) 
 when spoken of collectively in the plural number, each 
 considered separately must have been called Seog, 
 which would in English naturally, if not necessarily, 
 be translated by every English writer having no pre- 
 vious bias upon his mind, with the indefinite article 
 prefixed, * a God,' and not anarthrous, as you say, 
 * God ;' for where ten or more persons are called gods, 
 no Englishman writing of one of them would say that 
 he was God, but that he was a God ; and so of each 
 of the others, that he was a God also, as has been 
 actually done in the passage in Exodus, chap. vii. 
 ver. 1, where the supreme Being, speaking to Moses, 
 says, " See, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh." 
 After all, it is in reality of little importance in what 
 sense the Jews supposed our Lord to have made him- 
 self God, or how the word Siov, which they made use 
 of, is to be rendered ; as our Lord intimated to them, 
 in language too plain to be misapprehended, that they 
 had been utterly mistaken, for that he had never made 
 himself Ssov, (God, or a God,) at all ; but that they 
 had charged him with blasphemy, because he had said 
 that he was the Son of God. 
 
 It is a most singular fact, that there is scarcely any 
 part of this celebrated passage, so often quoted by 
 trinitarians in support of their doctrine, which will
 
 28 
 
 not be found, when attentively considered, to be in 
 direct opposition to it. I shall give one more instance 
 of it from the conclusion. Our Lord say?, that he 
 was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father, 
 His sanctification and mission, we perceive, are men- 
 tioned together ; as if both took place at the same 
 time, or the former immediately, or shortly, preceded 
 the latter, and took place with a view to it, in order 
 to qualify him for it. But what occasion could there 
 be for him to be sanctified, who, according to the tri- 
 nitarian hypothesis, was from all eternity most holy, 
 wise, just, and good ? If he was sanctified at, or just 
 before, his mission, or at any other time whatever, it 
 follows, that during the whole of an antecedent eter- 
 nity he must have been unsanctified. If it should be 
 said by the trinitarian, contrary to our Lord's words, 
 (who never speaks of himself by parts and parcels, 
 but as one entire being,) that it was only his human 
 nature that was then sanctified, this, though it agrees 
 perfectly with the Unitarian system, that at a certain 
 period of his life he was by the Father sanctified and 
 sent into the world that is, sent among the people 
 to preach the Gospel to them, will not correspond 
 at all with the trinitarian doctrine, which represents 
 the divine Logos, the second person in the Trinity 
 only, as having been sent from heaven into this world 
 to-unite with the human nature, which previously to 
 the supposed miraculous conception had no existence. 
 Supposing it however to have been the divine Logos,
 
 29 
 
 that was sanctified, and sent into the world by the 
 Father, there are other unavoidable inferences which 
 are utterly irreconcileable with the trinitarian scheme. 
 He that sanctifies must, whilst language has any 
 meaning, be considered as greater, or holier, than he 
 who is sanctified by him, as our Saviour himself says, 
 " Which is greater, the gift, or the altar which sanc- 
 tifies the gift ?" Matt, xxiii. 19. In like manner, he 
 who sends his messenger to finish certain work which 
 he had given him to do, (John xvii. 5,) will always 
 be deemed to be superior to the messenger he has 
 dispatched to perform it. How is it also upon the 
 trinitarian hypothesis, that the Holy Ghost had no 
 concern with our Lord's sanctification ; and that he 
 is never represented as having been sent by the Holy 
 Ghost, but by the Father only ? I am aware that 
 there is another meaning of the Greek word which 
 has been rendered ' sanctified,' by trinitarian trans- 
 lators : but as that will, if possible, militate still more 
 strongly against then* system, they will not feel much 
 inclined to adopt it. 
 
 It was in reply to an observation made in your for- 
 mer letter, that the word of God which came to the 
 prophets of old was the Eternal Logos, meaning the 
 second person in the Trinity, namely, our Saviour, 
 that I produced the parallel passage of the word of 
 Samuel coming to all Israel, to shew that there was 
 no more reason for considering the word of God 
 which came to the prophets to be a person, than the
 
 30 
 
 word of Samuel which came to all Israel : and I 
 quoted the first verse of the first chapter of the He- 
 brews, as containing direct proof, that it was the 
 Father who spoke by the prophets, and not the Son . 
 This last quotation you pass over in silence ; but say 
 that you do not conceive Samuel's word a person, be- 
 cause no other Scripture leads you to adopt such an 
 opinion : neither do I for the same reason ; nor do I 
 consider the worcl of the Father to be a person, be- 
 cause in figurative language it is sometimes personi- 
 fied, as ' wisdom' is in the Old Testament, and as va- 
 rious properties and attributes are in a variety of 
 writers, sacred and profane, ancient and modern. 
 There have been a few instances of the passage in the 
 Psalms, " By the word of the Lord were the heavens 
 made," having been produced to prove that the Son, 
 or Logos, made the material heavens ; till it was no- 
 ticed that this was followed by the words, " and all 
 the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth ;" when 
 it became evident that, if the word of the Lord by 
 which the heavens were made was to be taken lite- 
 rally, and was to denote a person, the breath of his 
 mouth, by which all the hosts of them were made, 
 must likewise be taken literally, and mean a person 
 also. 
 
 Your quotation from the first chapter of St. John's 
 Gospel depends, not only upon the supposed accuracy 
 of the common version, but upon particular meanings 
 which trinitarians have been accustomed to give to
 
 31 
 
 certain words, without any evidence whatever, till they 
 have at last come to think, that they can mean nothing 
 else. In the first place they universally understand, 
 without a shadow of proof, or even of probability, the 
 words iv expw (in the beginning), to mean, ' in the be- 
 ginning of the world,' the period of the creation of this 
 terraqueous globe ; but it is remarkable, that though 
 the apostle uses this expression in more than twenty 
 instances, in fourteen of which it is used to denote the 
 beginning of our Lord's ministry, which there is the 
 strongest reason to think is the sense in which he 
 uses it here, he never once makes use of it to allude 
 to the creation of the world. Why then are we, with- 
 out any reason, and contrary to all probability, to put 
 this construction upon it ? If we reject it, (and I will 
 venture to affirm no critic would adopt it in the inter- 
 pretation of any other writings under such circum- 
 stances,) every one acquainted with Scripture phraseo- 
 logy knows, that ' being with God' does not mean be- 
 ing God, but being favoured with manifestations of 
 the Divine presence, and with communications of the 
 Divine will, in which sense Moses and other messen- 
 gers and prophets of the Most High are represented 
 as having been with God ; and thus understood, the 
 passage will be perfectly clear and rational. In the 
 beginning of our Lord's ministry he was favoured with 
 a manisfestation of the Divine presence, and with a 
 revelation of the Divine will, and he is, in language 
 common in Scripture, called the ff /r ord, which is thus
 
 32 
 
 personified, because he was commissioned to declare, 
 and did declare, the word of God to mankind, more 
 fully, and explicitly, than any other of God's messen- 
 gers or prophets. The giving of such names in the 
 Holy Scriptures, not only to men, but even to things 
 inanimate, is so frequent, that it is impossible to go 
 far without meeting with instances of it. Thus the 
 great prophet who slew the priests of Baal in the reign 
 of Ahab, was called Elijah, that is, 'my god Jehovah.' 
 The father of Elihu, one of Job's friends, was called 
 Barachiel, meaning ' the very God.' One of Daniel's 
 friends who was cast into the fiery furnace was called 
 Mishael, which means, * he who is God.' If our 
 Saviour had been called by such names, it would 
 have been considered by trinitarians as most decisive 
 proof of his divinity ; and yet they were given to mere 
 mortal men like ourselves, though highly favoured by 
 the Supreme Being. It was likewise very common 
 in former times to call men by names denoting what 
 they did, or resembled, whether with, respect to other 
 persons or things. Thus in Exodus xxxi. 2, the 
 Supreme Being says of a very wise and skilful work- 
 man, " See, I have called by name Bezaleel," which 
 means ' the shadow of God;' and in Genesis xxxii. 28, 
 the name Israel, meaning ' a conqueror of God,' is 
 given to Jacob. In Exodus xvii. 15, even an altar is 
 called " Jehovah my banner." So Quintus Fabius 
 Maximus was called ' the shield,' and Marcellus ' the 
 sword,' of Rome. Is it wonderful therefore, that our
 
 49 
 
 the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall 
 be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they 
 shall call his name Immanuel, which being inter- 
 preted is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised 
 from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden 
 him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not. till 
 she had brought forth her first-born son, and he. called 
 his name Jesus" In the second chapter ascribed 
 to Luke, (ver. 21,) it is said, "And when eight 
 days were accomplished for the circumcising of the 
 child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named 
 of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." 
 A curious fulfilment of a prophecy this, where the 
 prophecy is, that the virgin spoken of by Isaiah 
 shall call the name of her child Immanuel, and the 
 supposed fulfilment, that both the mother and the 
 father-in-law of a child born seven hundred years after, 
 were commanded by an angel to call her child Jesus, 
 which they are stated to have done ; and it does not 
 appear, that they, or any one else, ever called him Im- 
 manuel during the whole course of his, or their lives, 
 or during the lives of any of his apostles. This natu- 
 rally creates a desire to examine the prophecy itself, in 
 order to ascertain, whether it does in fact relate to .our 
 Lord at all : and I must confess, after having considered 
 it with great attention, it appears to me that it does noti 
 It is stated (Isaiah, ch. vii.) that Ahaz king of Judah, 
 being in great distress, on receiving intelligence that 
 Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, had 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 combined to invade his dominions, and to dethrone 
 him, the j>rophet was commissioned by the Most High 
 to encourage him, and to assure him that their design 
 should not be successful : but it would appear, that 
 s6me doubt, or apprehension, still lingered in the mo- 
 narch's breast, for it is said, '(ver. 9,) " If ye will not 
 believe, surely ye shall not be established." And then 
 the Lord is represented as speaking again unto Ahaz 
 by the prophet, as before, saying : " Ask thee a sign 
 of the Lord thy God ; ask it either in the depth, or in 
 the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nei- 
 ther will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye 
 now, O house of David. Is it a- small thing for you 
 to weary men, but will ye weary my God also ?. There- 
 fore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, 
 a virgin (or 'young woman,' as I apprehend it may be 
 rendered ; meaning more likely some virgin or young 
 woman then present, and looked to, or pointed at, 
 than a virgin or young woman who was to appear se- 
 ven hundred years after, of which not the slightest in- 
 timation is given) she (for thus I understand it may 
 be translated) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall 
 call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he 
 eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose 
 the good; for before the child shall know to refuse the 
 evil, and choose the good, the land that thou ablior- 
 rest shall be forsaken of both her kings." 
 
 Now there is every reason to believe that this prophe- 
 tic sign, which \yas to encourage the doubting sovereign
 
 51 
 
 and his household, was to be manifested in a very short 
 time. If any young woman then present, to whom 
 it might be known to relate, was to be declared preg- 
 nant within a very short time after, it would be some 
 indication that the prophetic sign was fulfilling ; and 
 when in the course of a few months more, she was de- 
 livered of a son, and called his name Immanuel, the 
 sign would be fully accomplished, upon the .speedy 
 fulfilment of which the prophet had staked his credit, 
 and the greatest encouragement afforded, that the 
 principal prophecy which this secondary one, for such 
 it was, was intended to be a sign of would in due 
 time be accomplished likewise. But what sign could 
 that be to a distressed, and doubting prince, which 
 Was not to appear till hundreds of years, not only after 
 his cfealh, but after the accomplishment of the prin- 
 cipal prophecy of which it was to be a sign ? Is it to 
 be conceived, that any one who doubted the taking 
 place of an event predicted to him, which he thought 
 unlikely to happen, should have his doubts removed, 
 or feel encouraged, by being told, upon the same au- 
 thority, that a still more extraordinary, and unlikely 
 thing should happen seven hundred years after? 
 This would be completely in verting^: the order of 
 things, and be just as rational, as if it were to be 
 predicted of any one in the last stage of a consump- 
 tion, that in three weeks he should be restored to per- 
 fect health ; and upon his testifying his unbelief, the 
 prophet were to say to him, As you do not appear to 
 
 E.2
 
 believe my prediction, a sign shall be given to you 
 that will remove all doubt, Three hundred years 
 hence, one of your descendants shall be emperor of 
 Austria. What would be the probable effect upon the 
 sick man's mind ? Would it be at all likely to van- 
 quish his incredulity, and to impart encouragement 
 and comfort to him in his distress ? But there would 
 be a much greater, probability of its producing that 
 effect, if the prophet, of whom he had a high opi- 
 nion, were to pledge his credit upon something that 
 was to take place very soon after, the not happening 
 of which according to his prediction, he must well 
 know would destroy it altogether, false prophets not 
 being in the habit of acting in this manner. Besides, 
 if the sign itself was 'not to appear till hundreds of 
 years after the monarch himself should be in his grave, 
 and after the event itself, of which it was to be the 
 sign, should have taken place, what propriety could 
 there have been in declaring, that this event, the prin- 
 cipal thing predicted, should happen before the child 
 should know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, 
 when it would have actually taken place hundreds of 
 years before the child was born ? Would it not have 
 been more simple, and more natural, to have said at 
 once, It shall happen before he is born ? What other 
 reason could there have been for fixing at all, upon the 
 period when he should know to refuse the evil, and 
 choose the good, than that the whole referred to events 
 at no great distance, which were to take place aftef
 
 53 
 
 the child's birth, but before he should arrive at years; 
 of discretion ? -,* t \ 
 
 To such events, I can entertain no doubt, it did re- 
 late, and not at all to our Saviour: for it appears from 
 the history of that period, as recorded in the fifteenth, 
 sixteenth, and seventeenth chapters of the second, 
 book of Kings, that Ahaz reigned but sixteen years. 
 In what year of his reign this confederacy was formed 
 against him, does not appear; but it was probably not 
 very soon, for it appears that he had time fully to de- 
 velop his character, by forsaking the law of the Lord, 
 and practising all the abominations of the heathens $ 
 and then it is said that the kings of Syria and Israel 
 came up against him : but after having besieged Je- 
 rusalem, though without success, and conquered Elath, 
 Ahaz, we are informed, in the course of that very war, 
 applied to the king of Assyria for assistance, who ac- 
 cordingly attacked Damascus the capital of Syria, and 
 took it, and carried away its inhabitants captive to Kir, 
 and slew Rezin ; by which the first part of the prophecy 
 was very speedily accomplished. There is some little 
 confusion in the accounts relative to Pekah; but as it 
 is stated that he was slain in the twentieth year of 
 Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Jotham is said to 
 have reigned but sixteen years, and Ahaz to have suc- 
 ceeded him in the seventeenth year of Pekah's reign, 
 and Pekah to have reigned twenty years, it is evident 
 that Pekah must have perished in the third or fourth 
 year of Ahaz; so that even supposing the confederacy to
 
 54 
 
 have been formed in the very first year of the reign of 
 Ahaz, and the young woman, or the virgin, to whom 
 the prophet alluded, to have married, and borne a child 
 in the shortest possible time, the whole prophecy was 
 fulfilled before that child could have been of sufficient 
 age to know to refuse the evil, ancl choose the good; 
 that is, before his arrival at years of discretion ; since 
 he could only have been three years old, probably not 
 nearly so much, when all was accomplished. I feel 
 it impossible for me to say, after this, that I think that 
 the application of the prophecy in question by the au- 
 thor of the supposed first chapter of St. Matthew, 
 with all reason and probability, and every fact we know 
 any thing of, against it, standing as it does, totally un- 
 confirmed by any Scripture writer whomsoever, not 
 one of whom makes any similar application of it, is 
 entitled to the least degree of credit. 
 
 But to return to the subject of the incarnation. 
 This doctrine, whether the incarnation meant by it be 
 supposed to have been effected by the assumption of 
 the human nature of our Lord into the godhead, that 
 is, into the divine Logos, the supposed second person 
 in the Trinity, according to the creed ascribed to St. 
 Athanasius, or the entering of the divine Logos into 
 the human nature, which alone corresponds with the 
 term * incarnation,' was never taught by our Lord him- 
 self ; and where to find it, or any thing like it, in the 
 whole compass of Scripture, I am at a loss to disco- 
 ver. Upon the first of these suppositions, besides its
 
 being no incarnation at all, but 06 the contrary an in- 
 dention, if I may be allowed to coin an awkward word 
 to express it, it is, as I have remarked already, con- 
 trary even to the trinitarian interpretation of the pas- 
 sage in the first chapter of St. John, " and the word 
 was made flesh;" but might have answered better, had 
 it run thus, "and the flesh was made word;" though 
 it would not then have been quite correct. The se- 
 cond supposition, that the divine Logos entered into 
 the human nature, and became permanently united 
 to it, though it would be a proper incarnation, is also at 
 variance with the trinitarian translation of the passage 
 in St. John just quoted, which conveys no other idea in 
 itself, than that of transmutation, which is very different 
 from entering into, and becoming united to, any thing. 
 But waving all further observation on these two dis- 
 cordant hypotheses, let us consider the incarnation 
 simply as a permanent union of the divine Logos, 
 the supposed second person of the Trinity, with 
 the human nature of our Lord, so as to constitute 
 together with it one person, having two distinct na- 
 tures, which is, I believe, what all modern Euro- 
 pean trin itarians are agreed in: where, my dear sir, 
 is this to be found, except in the creeds and decrees 
 of uninspired, and fallible, councils, and synods, and 
 the writings of uninspired, and fallible, theologians ? 
 Our Lord never gives the most distant hint of his hav- 
 ing two natures; never speaks of any union, but be- 
 tween himself and the Father, nor of any superior
 
 56 , 
 
 Being dwelling in 'him, but the Father only. He 
 speaks of himself plainly and simply as a man, who 
 had told the Jews the truth, and whom they sought 
 on that account to kill. John viii. 40. If he had 
 been conscious of the divine Logos which is supposed 
 by the trinitarians to have made the heavens, and 
 earth, and all things, and to be omnipotent being in- 
 separably united to him, and constituting one person 
 with his human nature, how could he have said " I 
 can of mine own self do nothing." John v. 30. " The 
 Father who dwelleth in me, he doth the works." John 
 xiv. 10. Where do any of the apostles speak of the 
 incarnation, or of any two natures in our Lord ? which 
 they might have been expected frequently to have 
 mentioned as doctrines of great importance, as the 
 trinitarians of the present day do. How was it that 
 Peter in his first sermon after the resurrection, when 
 he described to his countrymen who our Lord was, 
 and converted three thousand of them, never so much 
 as hinted at this stupendous, and infinitely important, 
 doctrine; but merely described him as a man ap- 
 proved of God, by miracles, signs, and wonders, 
 which God did by him ? 
 
 Is it not most extraordinary, if the divine Logos was 
 inseparably united to the human nature of our Lord, so 
 as to constitute with it but one person, that it does not 
 appear to have enabled him to perform one miracle, to 
 impart one divine revelation, or to bear one suffering ? 
 That it did not enable him to perform any miracles is
 
 57 
 
 undeniable, not only from the absence of all proof, or 
 assertion, to this effect, but also from his own express 
 declarations so often alluded to: "I can of mine own 
 self do nothing. The Father who dwelleth in me, 
 he doth the works." That it did not enable him to 
 make any divine revelations, appears likewise from his 
 own declarations : ** My doctrine is not mine, but his 
 that sent me." John vii. 16. And he elsewhere de- 
 clares that it was his Father who sent him. John v. 37. 
 So he afterwards says upon the same subject ; " As 
 my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." 
 John viii. 28. Here it appears by strong implication, 
 not only that what he spoke was from his Father, but 
 that he did not previously know it himself, and re- 
 quired to be taught it by, and to learn it from, another. 
 Again he says, " For I have not spoken of myself, 
 but the Father which sent me, he gave me a com- 
 mandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 
 Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father 
 said unto me, so I speak." John xit. 49, 50. That 
 it did not enable him to bear any sufferings, is to be 
 collected, not only from there being no proof, or as- 
 sertion, that it did, but from the account given us of 
 his suffering in the garden, just before his crucifixion, 
 when the evangelist informs us, Luke xx. 43, that 
 " there appeared an angel unto him from heaven 
 strengthening him ;" which would have been both ab- 
 surd, and useless, if the divine Logos had enabled him 
 to bear his sufferings. What a lamentable exhibi-
 
 68 
 
 tion is made by this text, upon the trinitarian hypo- 
 thesis of the incarnation, of a created being strength- 
 ening his Creator, of a poor finite angel of limited 
 powers, a being not even pure in the sight of his God, 
 nor free from the charge of folly before him, strength- 
 ening Omnipotence and Omniscience ! Some trini- 
 tarians perhaps would contend, that it was only the hu- 
 man nature of our Lord that was strengthened by the 
 angel. But in the first place the evangelist does not 
 say so, but speaks of our Lord generally, and entirely; 
 and, so far from confining what he says to a part of 
 him, that is to one particular nature, does not appear 
 from any part of his writings to have had the least idea 
 of our Lord's having two natures. What right have 
 we then to add to his words mere suppositions, made 
 expressly to favour an hypothesis of our own ? Se- 
 condly, all that constituted our Lord, even according 
 to the trinitarian doctrine, made but one person ; 
 therefore when the evangelist speaks of him, he must 
 be understood to speak of that person, ^ind not of any 
 particular part of him, unless he tells us so, which he 
 has not done. Thirdly, as according to the trinita- 
 rians, the divine nature was inseparably united to the 
 human nature", what occasion could there be to send 
 an angel from heaven to strengthen the human nature, 
 when it had already almighty power always united to, 
 and present with it, which must have rendered the as- 
 sistance of a finite, limited, and created being quite 
 superfluous ? If there had been any proof of such an
 
 59 
 
 incarnation as is contended for, it would not have been 
 pretended, that we are any where informed that the 
 divine nature refrained from aiding the human nature 
 upon this trying occasion to bear its sufferings, the 
 sacred writings being quite silent upon the subject of 
 two natures in Christ, and the trinitarians on the con- 
 trary maintaining, that its assistance was absolutely 
 necessary to enable the human nature to bear the infi- 
 nite punishment, which, according to them, the jus- 
 tice of the Supreme Being must otherwise have in- 
 flicted upon the elect, who are redeemed, and saved, 
 by the death and sufferings of our Lord. The power 
 of the divine nature then, that is, almighty power, 
 must, according to their hypothesis, have been ex- 
 erted. The assistance of an angel, therefore, if it 
 were considered merely as superadded to that of al- 
 mighty power, would not have been equal to the dust 
 of the balance; but when considered as strengthening 
 OMNIPOTENCE, the absurdity is monstrous. Who can 
 wonder, that the great Newton should pronounce of 
 such a doctrine, that the time would come, when it 
 would be exploded, as an absurdity equal to transub- 
 stantiation ? That time is now, thank God ! fast ap- 
 proaching. The night is far spent, the day is at hand,, 
 indeed hath already begun to dawn upon us, and will 
 shine more and more, till it arrives at it's meridian 
 brightness. How few were there in Sir Isaac New- 
 ton's time, who thought as he did ! How many thou- 
 sands are there at present in this country only ! How
 
 60 
 
 
 few were the Unitarian places of worship within our 
 own remembrance! four or five perhaps in the whole 
 kingdom. At present there are few places of any mag- 
 nitude without one ; and if we may form a judgement 
 from what we know ourselves, and hear from others, 
 there may be some foundation for the report, that there 
 are more Unitarians within the church, than .out of it. 
 -.i.The Unitarian system stands unencumbered with 
 any of the difficulties we have just been contempla- 
 ting; considering our blessed Lord, though the great- 
 est, and most distinguished of God's messengers, and 
 prophets, to be a man of like passions with ourselves, 
 endued with exquisite sensibility of feeling, and per- 
 fect knowledge of the extent of his approaching suf- 
 ferings, and, therefore, for a moment overwhelmed 
 with distress, at the prospect of what he was so soon 
 to undergo, it acknowledges the kind, and gracious, 
 interposition of his Father, and our Father, of his 
 God, and our God, in sending an angel, as he had 
 occasionally done before in the case of others of the 
 prophets and holy men of old, to comfort, and strengthen 
 him. : T; :, 
 
 Having been unable to find the doctrine of the in- 
 carnation, or any thing like it, in any of the sacred 
 writings, I am as little able to discover in what part of 
 the Scriptures our Saviour, the humble Jesus, claims, 
 as you say, true deity ; or where he claims our wor- 
 ship, if by worship be meant any thing more than that 
 homage, and reverence, which we are bound to pay
 
 61 
 
 to one who has been raised by his Father to the high 
 office of prophet, priest, and king, to the whole hu- 
 man race, and which is analogous to the homage paid 
 by us to earthly sovereigns and superiors, which: was 
 frequently called worship; and the persons entitled to 
 it were called worshipful,, even in our own coxintry, 
 at no very remote periods, and of which we have the 
 remains to this day. Thus we say his worship the 
 mayor of such a place, their worships the king's jus- 
 tices, and the like. But that religious worship, which 
 is paid to God, and particularly that most important 
 part of it, prayer, he never claims ; for though he, and 
 his apostles after him, subsequent to his ascension, in 
 numerous places command, and exhort us to pray to 
 the Father, there is not one solitary instance of any 
 of them ever commanding, or requesting us to pray 
 to him ; which would be most extraordinary indeed, 
 if, as you say, he claimed true deity, and therefore 
 claimed, or was entitled to, religious worship ; espe- 
 cially as both he, and his apostles, exhort us to do 
 many things of comparatively very much less import- 
 ance. This remarkable fact throws strong light upon 
 the three or four very doubtful passages, in which the 
 trinitarians conceive, that prayer was in a few instances 
 actually addressed to him ; but which in my appre- 
 hension prove no such thing ; the persons who are 
 supposed to have thus prayed to him having both been 
 persons who were after his ascension favoured with his 
 personal presence, when they might make their re-
 
 62 
 
 quests to him as to any other superior ; and even if 
 this were called praying 'to him, it would be nearly in 
 the same sense, as we pray our superiors among man- 
 kind to bestow Upon us favours which we are desirous 
 of obtaining from them ; a sense very different from 
 that in- which we pray to the invisible God, whom no 
 mortal eye hath seen, or can see, as a part of our reli- 
 gious worship, thereby ascribing to him omnipotence, 
 omniscience, and omnipresence. The application of 
 the word in the. former sense, to requests made to our 
 superiors, even among mankind, is very common, if 
 attended to : Thus the king is said to be prayed to 
 confer some special mark of his favour upon a parti- 
 cular person wjio has merited it ; a criminal convicted 
 of felony is desired to pray his clergy ; and a plaintiff 
 prays judgement against a defendant. I believe it 
 would *be extremely easy, in every one of the instances 
 alluded to, to shew, that there was either direct proof, 
 or a high degree of probability, that the person repre- 
 sented as invoking, or making any request to, Jesus 
 Christ, not only had been, but was at the very time, 
 favoured with a personal communication with, or sight 
 of, him. Can we, therefore, in the absence of all 
 precept^ safely- build such an important doctrine upon 
 a few obscure passages like these ? It may be said s 
 that our Saviour would not command any prayers to 
 be offered up to himself, during his state of humilia- 
 tion, before his resurrection ; but is it to be believed, 
 that neither he, nor his npostles, when alluding to
 
 prayers to be offered up after bis resurrection "and 
 ascension, when lie was invested with all bis glory, 
 wbicb is done in very numerous instances should 
 direct all these prayers to be addressed to the Father, 
 and not one of them to him, if he was equally the ob- 
 ject of prayer as the Father ? If it were so, we might 
 naturally expect to find as many instances of prayer 
 being commanded to be made to him, as to the Fa- 
 ther. Let the Christian, who makes the Scriptures 
 his study and his rule, judge for himself. 
 
 It might have been expected likewise, supposing 
 the trinitarian hypothesis to be true, and that religious 
 worship, including prayer, is to be addressed to two 
 other persons besides the Father, one of whom is the 
 Holy Ghost, that we should have been commanded 
 in numerous instances to have prayed to the latter ; 
 but no such precept is to be found any where. How 
 is this to be accounted for? Some have said, that our 
 Lord's humility, whilst pn earth, prevented him from 
 directing prayers to be made to himself; and also, 
 that whilst he was personally present with his disci- 
 ples, it was unnecessary. But our Lord, whilst in thi? 
 world, had none of that false humility which has been 
 supposed : upon all proper occasions, he declined not 
 to assert his claims to those honours, with which it 
 had pleased the Father to invest him, declaring him- 
 self to be a king, to have been born for that purpose, 
 to be greater than Solomon, and the like ; and though 
 prayer to him,, whilst on earth/was unnecessary, how is .
 
 it, that when he is directing men how they should pray, 
 and whom they should worship, at future periods, he 
 names the Father, and him only, as the object of prayer 
 and religious worship, even when he adverts to himself 
 upon the occasion, and commands his disciples to 
 pray to the Father in his name, without ever intimat- 
 ing to them in the slightest manner that they might 
 also pray to himself ? But supposing that from humi- 
 lity, or any similar cause, he did not direct that his 
 followers should, either then, or at any future periodj 
 pray to himself; none of these causes -will account for 
 his never praying to the Holy Ghost, nor requiring 
 any of his followers to pray to him, then, or at any 
 future time, supposing the Holy Ghost to be a person 
 equal to the Father, and equally God with him. Still 
 less will they account for the singular fact, that none 
 of the apostles, after our Lord's ascension, appear to 
 have ever prayed to the Holy Ghost, or to have com- 
 manded any of their disciples to do it ; nor do we find 
 -that any of them ever did. It w*as never disputed 
 among Christians, that it is the indispensable duty of 
 mankind to pray to God ; but in this case we have a 
 person supposed to be God, whom no one was ever 
 commanded to pray to, and to whom, in point of fact, 
 it does not appear that any one ever did pray, during 
 the life of the great founder of Christianity, nor during 
 the lives of his apostles, whom he commissioned to 
 prea,ch, and explain his doctrines. 
 
 Let the trinitarian solve this difficulty, for it goes to
 
 3S 
 
 Saviour, who was sent to declare God's word so fully 
 and completely to mankind, should be called the * Word 
 of God?' and is there on that account any reason what- 
 ever for supposing him to be that very God, whose 
 word he was declared to be ? Is not the contrary to 
 be inferred ? Upon the subsequent clause of the sen- 
 tence, that "the word was Ssog" (God, or a God), I shall 
 remark, that we have seen already, that the prophets to 
 whom the word of God came (and to which I may add 
 even magistrates and rulers) have frequently been 
 called gods ; yet it appears, that the persons thus di- 
 stinguished were mortal men, " and were to die like 
 other men, and to fall like any of the princes." These 
 gods are also called upon to " worship him, who is 
 Lord above all the earth, who is exalted above the 
 gods." See Psalm Ixxxii. What reason then should 
 we have for concluding (supposing the same word to 
 have been applied to Christ in this chapter, particu- 
 larly as it stands without the article), that it denoted 
 him to be a god in any other sense ? If the word $so$ 
 (supposing it to be applied to our Saviour) is not used 
 in an inferior sense, as it was when applied to other 
 messengers and prophets, who were men like ourselves, 
 why is not our Saviour frequently called o Ssog as well 
 as the Father, who is so called in the Scriptures, hun- 
 dreds, not to say thousands of times ? For what reason 
 is this distinction made without a difference ? This 
 is a curious problem, which it will be very difficult to 
 solve upon trinitarian principles : but if we interpret 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 Scripture by Scripture, and consider Christ to be 
 called Sso$, like otber divine messengers and prophets, 
 because the word of God came to him, the solution 
 is easy, and obvious. The tenth chapter throws light 
 upon, and explains, the use of the word Bios in this 
 chapter, and the difficulty is entirely removed. In 
 both, the words Ssog, and Ssov, are without the article. 
 Jn 2 Esdras, vii. 3, (which I do not quote as any 
 authority, but only to shew how the word * God' was 
 sometimes used in ancient times,) it is applied to an 
 .angel who was sent, the words being, " There was 
 sent unto me the angel who had been with me be- 
 fore ; and he said unto me, Rise, Esdras, and hear the 
 word that I am come to tell thee : and I said, Speak 
 on, my God" We in modern times have confined 
 the word 'God' to the Most High, the Creator of 
 heaven and earth ; but the ancients did not : and 
 whenever we interpret their writings, we must do it 
 according to their mode of using the word, and not 
 our own. You are aware, I have no doubt, that very 
 learned men have denied the application of the word 
 fayog, as well as the word Sso;, to Christ, in the be- 
 ginning of this chapter, altogether ; but with that 
 controversy I do not meddle. 
 
 You suppose from the same chapter, that all things 
 were made by our Saviour, and that "without him was 
 not any one thing (!) made that was made." From 
 which you infer, that he was not made or created, as 
 he could not make himself: but for this construction
 
 35 
 
 you rely entirely upon the rendering of the verb y 
 in the common version : which is depending upon a 
 broken reed. I apprehend that this word is made use 
 of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but 
 not once to denote creating, that in this very Gospel 
 it is used more than fifty times, signifying 'to be/ *to 
 be done, performed, or transacted,' * to come,' ' to be- 
 come,' 'to happen;' but never to make or create. There 
 are very few trinitarians who would not laugh at me, 
 if I were to require them to adopt a translation which 
 had been made unfavourable to their hypothesis, by 
 rendering a word in a sense in which it was not used 
 once in ten times. They must excuse me, therefore, 
 for declining to accede to a translation, which is ren- 
 dered favourable to it by translating a word in a sense 
 in which it is not only not used once in seven hun- 
 dred times, but never used at all, in the whole compass 
 of Scripture. Had it been actually used two or three 
 times in this sense, we should not have been justified, 
 upon any principles of sound criticism, in so inter- 
 preting it, contrary to evidence so preponderating : 
 but who would think of adopting such ah interpreta- 
 tion, with all the evidence against it ? and this to 
 support the most improbable and incredible of all 
 doctrines, namely, that Jesus Christ, who was born 
 of a woman, whose brethren we are admitted to be, 
 B.ndi joint heirs with him in the heavenly inheritance.; 
 who is represented as wholly dependent upon the Fa- 
 ther, and deriving all his powers from him ; as having
 
 36 
 
 in his distress offered up prayers and supplications, 
 with a strong cry, and with tears, to him, as able to 
 save him from death ; as having been raised from the 
 dead by the power of the Father ; as having no power 
 to appoint places at his right hand, and at his left, in 
 the future state; as not knowing even the day of that 
 judgment, in which he is to act so distinguished a part; 
 as being exalted by God to a kingdom as a reward 
 for his obedience and suffering; a kingdom, however, 
 which is to have an end at a future period, when he 
 is to deliver it up to the Father, and is to be subject 
 to him ;- that this Jesus is equal to that great Being, 
 upon whom he constantly depended, who did all this 
 for him, to whom he is indebted for all things, and is 
 to be ultimately subject, -credat qui vult: but I should 
 think that few persons, not educated upon trinitarian 
 principles, would be found among the number. The 
 sense that is warranted by the corresponding use of 
 the word in other parts of Scripture is, that "all things 
 were done or performed by him, and without him was 
 not any thing done that was done." 
 
 As you have (after assuming contrary to evidence 
 that yivo^on here means to create) interpreted the 
 words 'all things* without any limitation, and evident- 
 ly considered them as including, not only the heavens 
 and the earth, with every thing in them, but also all 
 persons whomsoever ; it will be necessary for me to 
 make a few observations upon what appears to me, to 
 be the most proper manner of interpreting these words
 
 37 
 
 also, which I conceive ought to be done in the exer- 
 cise of a sound discretion, with due attention to the 
 subject matter, and also to the scope and design of the 
 writer: and if his subject be the Christian dispensation, 
 and the beginning of it by the ministry of Christ, the 
 words will naturally, and easily, denote, all things per- 
 taining to the commencement of that dispensation. If 
 the subject had been the reign of a king, or the cam- 
 paign of some victorious general, and it had been said, 
 All things were done or performed by him ; by these 
 words it would have been immediately understood, 
 that all things connected with his government, or com- 
 mand, had been done by him, or by his authority, 
 agency, or directions. So in the writings of the same 
 apostle, (1 John ii. 20,) he says to certain of his dis- 
 ciples, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and 
 know all things;" which no one understands to mean, 
 that he ascribed omniscience to these disciples ; but, 
 limiting it by the context, and putting a reasonable 
 construction upon it, understands it to signify that 
 they knew all things belonging to the Christian system, 
 which it was necessary for them to know, to guaid 
 against the misrepresentations of some deceivers, or 
 antichrists, who had gone forth into the world. 
 
 Your inference, that Jesus Christ was not made, or 
 created, because he could not make himself, rests en- 
 tirely upon the rendering of the word yivopcti, and 
 the sense in which the words ' all things ' are to be 
 understood : but it did not happen to occur to. you,
 
 38 
 
 that even if the former is rendered create, and the lat- 
 ter are taken in an unlimited sense, the inference is. 
 clearly a non sequitur ; for, supposing him to have 
 created all things, it does not follow that he created 
 all persons; and therefore he himself might have been 
 created by some other person: and if it be contended, 
 that he created all persons, as well as all things, it 
 will follow, that he created the Father, and the Holy 
 Ghost, and consequently, that he only, in the proper 
 sense of the word, is God; which latter doctrine some 
 Christians have actually held. In the remaining part 
 of the quotation I see nothing in favour of the trinita- 
 rian hypothesis, even if the common version were cor- 
 rect. The words * being made flesh ' would denote not 
 only that he was made, but that he was made a man, 
 flesh being very naturally put for man in many parts 
 of Scripture. But in fact there are no grounds for be- 
 lieving that the word yivcpxi here means to make, but 
 rather to be, which is one of the senses in which it is 
 most frequently used, when the construction will be ; 
 " And the word was flesh (or a man) ; and we saw his 
 glory, not as the glory of God, (TOV Secv,) but as of 
 the only-begotten son of God ;" the word * only-be- 
 gotten' being used solely by way of eminence, or as 
 denoting greater kindness, and attention, to a particu- 
 lar son, as Isaac was said to be the only-begotten son 
 of Abraham, though Abraham had other sons. I ap- 
 prehend, that this word, and ayccTrviTos, are used indi- 
 scriminately in translating the same word from the
 
 39 
 
 Hebrew, and the apostle John uses it where the other 
 New Testament writers employ ayccr-titos (beloved), 
 shewing plainly that they are used syonymously. As 
 referring to the Deity, indeed, it is impossible that the 
 literal sense of it can be understood. It must be taken 
 figuratively ; and as God has, and represents himself 
 to have, many sons, it is fair to conclude, that the 
 word was used to denote the superior love, which God 
 had for this particular son, and the higher honours, 
 with which he had invested him, having given him a 
 name above all other names an expression neverthe- 
 less which good sense must limit ; it being manifest 
 that it could not be above the name of him who had 
 given it, and who of course might have withheld the 
 gift, if he had thought fit. 
 
 You say that " when you find both divinity and 
 humanity ascribed to this one person (meaning our 
 Saviour) in innumerable passages of Scripture, you 
 cannot refuse to admit this doctrine, that .in the 
 unity of the Deity there is a grand distinction, that 
 admits the incarnation of one who claims true deity, 
 and who therefore claims your worship." I shall re- 
 ply to this passage, which embraces many points, a8 
 distinctly as I can. In the first place, I am utterly 
 at a loss, where to find the innumerable passages of 
 Scripture, which ascribe divinity to our Saviour, and 
 am strongly inclined to believe, that if you were to 
 set about making a collection of all such passages, you 
 would not only not find them innumerable, but be
 
 40 
 
 > 
 surprised to perceive, like others who have undertaken 
 
 the same task before you, how few there are, which 
 any person, not a trinitarian, would consider as even 
 doubtful : and with respect to the latter class of pas- 
 sages, common sense, as well as common prudence, 
 would forbid us to build any important doctrine upon 
 such foundations. To possess any weight for this 
 purpose, a passage must not only admit of, but require, 
 the construction that will establish the point con- 
 tended for, especially if it be, prima facie, extraordi- 
 nary and improbable. As to the incarnation you al- 
 lude to, I can see no proof of it in the Scriptures ; 
 and can only say with Sir Isaac Newton, that I be- 
 lieve the time will corne, when the doctrine of the in- 
 carnation, as commonly received, will be exploded as 
 an absurdity equal to transubstantiation. This most 
 extraordinary doctrine is usually supposed to be taught 
 in the first chapter of St. John, and also, together 
 with the miraculous conception, in the reputed two 
 first chapters of St. Matthew and the reputed two first 
 chapters of St. Luke, in which four last, as being sup- 
 posed to contain authentic accounts of our Lord's ge- 
 nealogy, and birth, we should most expect to find both. 
 The first chapter of St. John I have already remarked 
 upon, and shall here only add, as to the expression "and 
 the word was made flesh," that supposing the verb 
 yivo^oii could fairly be rendered in this pfece to create 
 or make, which I think I have shown it cannot, yet 
 neither interpretation would suit the trinitarian hypo-
 
 41 
 
 thesis, and still less the doctrine of the incarnation , 
 Let us see what can be made of the translation " and 
 the word was created flesh." It will be objected im- 
 
 v 
 
 mediately upon the trinitarian scheme, that the Word, 
 or the divine Logos, was not created at all> but was 
 uncreated in the strictest sense ; and besides, upon 
 the principle of the incarnation it will be further urged, 
 that in that sense he could not be said to have entered 
 into the flesh, and to be in it, or incarnate, but to be 
 flesh itself, flesh altogether. If the word ' made ' be 
 adopted, not in the sense of created, but as having 
 existed before as one substance or being, and having 
 been subsequently made another, this suggests no 
 other idea than that of transmutation, like that of 
 water being made wine, or stones bread, and not at 
 all that of entering into, and being in another un- 
 changed, as the doctrine of the incarnation requires. 
 The supposed assumption of the manhood into the 
 godhead is the reverse of the incarnation, which sup- 
 poses the entering of the divine nature into the hu- 
 man nature, and remaining there incarnate. Alas ! 
 that the great Creator of the universe, whom the hea- 
 vens, the heaven of heavens cannot contain, who fills 
 the boundless regions of space with his presence, 
 should ever have been imagined to have entered wholly, 
 and entirely, into a human embryo, and to have shut 
 himself up for nine months in a narrow cell ! 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider the accounts given 
 of the supposed miraculous conception, and incarna-
 
 42 
 
 tion, in what is called the first chapter of St. Matthew. 
 It is there said, that the birth of Jesus Christ was on 
 this wise : ''When as his mother Mary was espoused 
 to Joseph, before they came together, she was found 
 with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her 
 husband, being a just man, and not willing to make 
 her a public example, was minded to put her away 
 privately. But, while he thought on these things, the 
 angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, say- 
 ing, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto 
 thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her 
 is of the Holy Ghost: and she shall bring forth a son, 
 and thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save 
 his people from their sins. Now all this was done, 
 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
 Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be 
 with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall 
 call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, 
 God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, 
 did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and 
 took unto him his wife; and knew her not, till she had 
 brought forth her first-born son; and he called his 
 name Jesus" Now it is remarkable, that not a single 
 word in this passage alludes to any thing like the in- 
 carnation, or even the p re -existence, of our blessed 
 Lord. If it prove any thing, it proves that our Lord 
 was, as Adam had been before him, not formed ac- 
 cording to the ordinary course of generation, but 
 without the intervention of a human father, though
 
 43 
 
 by the instrumentality of a human mother; in which 
 last respect he differed from Adam. It would be, if 
 the account were correct, a case of miraculous con- 
 ception ; but there is not the most distant hint of any 
 superior being having entered into him, and become 
 incarnate in him; much less the supposed divine Lo- 
 gos ; for all that took place is ascribed to the Holy 
 Ghost, Mary being stated " to have been found with 
 child of the Holy Ghost," and that which was con- 
 ceived in her, it is said, was of the Holy Ghost. Now 
 if this statement ever proceeded from the pen of the 
 evangelist Matthew, and was therefore to be depended 
 upon, it would prove that our Lord, at least as to his 
 human nature, was begotten, not by the Father, but 
 by the Holy Ghost ; and is not (as those parts of the 
 Scriptures which are universally received as genuine 
 represent) the son of the Father, but of the Holy 
 Ghost. I think, however, that we have proofs suffi- 
 cient, both external and internal, (but especially the 
 latter,) that what are supposed to be the first two chap- 
 ters of this Gospel are spurious. I shall advert to a 
 few of them, after just hinting, what almost every one 
 knows, that the 'division into chapters is quite a mo- 
 dern invention. 
 
 In the first place, they are entitled " The Book of 
 the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David;" a 
 title not at all fit for the whole work; which gives them 
 much the appearance of having been a separate trea- 
 tise, not originally belonging to the Gospel, but which,
 
 44 
 
 i ^ 
 
 having in process of time been prefixed to it, as being 
 supposed to contain the earliest intelligence of our Lord, 
 by some person who happened to have both, at length 
 was first copied upon the same parchment, and after- 
 wards, without any interval, according to the ancient 
 manner of writing, so as to present the appearance of 
 an uninterrupted narration. In the next place, in order 
 to favour the idea of there having been exactly fourteen 
 generations from Abraham to David, exactly the same 
 number from David to the Babylonish captivity, and 
 the same number from that event to Christ, a coin- 
 cidence which, if it were real, yet, not answering any 
 particular purpose, was unworthy of notice, and would 
 appear puerile in any other place, the genealogy is 
 placed upon the bed of Procrustes, and lopped of some 
 of its members. In the third place, it is irreconcileably 
 at variance with the genealogy given of Joseph and of 
 our Saviour in the third chapter of St. Luke. Fourth- 
 ly, supposing the first sixteen verses (including the 
 genealogy, but excluding the remark about the four- 
 teen generations,) to be authentic, and the omission of 
 some generations to have happened from the careless- 
 ness of the transcribers of some very early manu- 
 scripts, the object of the writer is, by tracing our 
 Lord's pedigree through Joseph, his immediate father, 
 to David his remote ancestor, to prove that he was 
 the son of David : but the rest of the chapter is in 
 direct opposition to this, it being the design of the 
 writer of it, whoever he may have been, to shew that
 
 45 
 
 our Lord was NOT the son of Joseph ; which impor- 
 tant link in the chain failing, the genealogy falls en- 
 tirely to the ground, and it becomes impossible to 
 answer satisfactorily a question which has been very 
 properly asked, f ' Of what consequence was it to give 
 the genealogy of Joseph for that of Jesus, when, ac- 
 cording to this, Jesus was no more descended from 
 Joseph than he was from Herod ?" It is further to be 
 remarked, that this most extraordinary account of our 
 Lord having been born of a virgin, without the inter- 
 vention of a human father, by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was a fact of the utmost consequence, 
 and might have been expected to have been referred 
 to again and again, both in the course of this gospel, 
 and in all other accounts of our Saviour, as an article 
 of prime importance, and to which his father Joseph 
 being a carpenter, his being of Nazareth, and many 
 other things which are repeated frequently in the Go- 
 spels and Epistles, arein comparison nothing, is never 
 mentioned directly or indirectly, nor is any one of the 
 other remarkable occurrences comprised in these chap- 
 ters, in any subsequent parts of the gospels of Mat- 
 thew or Luke, in either of the other gospels, or in 
 any one of the epistles. Could this possibly have 
 happened, if any of these writers had ever heard of, 
 and believed, the most extraordinary events contained 
 in these spurious chapters ? for so, considering these, 
 and other strong objections to their credit, I cannot 
 hesitate to call them. Could these prominent, and
 
 46 
 
 most material facts, which, if correct, would rank 
 
 amongst the most striking features of the history, 
 have been neglected by any historian whatever, or 
 have been wholly passed over, even in an abridgment ? 
 How are we to account for the total silence of Mark 
 and John in their respective gospels, and that of Paul 
 in his numerous epistles, in which he gives such am- 
 ple details respecting our Lord, and the various rela* 
 tions in which he stood both to God and man ? Had 
 these writers wholly lost their memories; or did they 
 possess minds so singularly constructed, as to recollect 
 numerous circumstances comparatively insignificant 
 and unimportant, and at the same time to forget some 
 of the most extraordinary, and unexampled events re- 
 lative to the illustrious personage whose history they 
 were writing, that had ever occurred since the creation 
 of the human race ? 
 
 There are some other unaccountable circumstances 
 connected with these events, supposing them to be 
 true, that cannot be passed in silence. It appears by 
 the chapters both of Matthew and Luke, which are 
 now in question, that these things were not done in a 
 corner ; that the knowledge of them was not confined 
 even to the members of ouf Lord's own family ; but, 
 according to Matthew, some of them were known to 
 the magi, to Herod, and all the chief priests, and 
 scribes, whom he convened in council ; and, by the 
 slaughter of the innocents, to all the Jewish nation, 
 and others ; according to Luke, to the shepherds, and
 
 47 
 
 those to whom they related what they had seen ; to 
 Simon, to Anna the prophetess, and all who looked 
 for redemption in Israel, to whom she appears to have 
 communicated what she knew, which, if correct, must 
 have fixed the eyes of the whole country upon him at 
 once as the promised Messiah, and they could never 
 have lost sight of him afterwards as such : yet not 
 one person appears to have believed him to be the 
 Messiah, when he afterwards came forward in that cha- 
 racter, on account of any of these wonderful transac- 
 tions ; not even his own brothers, who, like many of 
 their countrymen, did not believe in him, after he had 
 begun to perform miracles, as such (John vii. 5) ; but 
 all who did believe, are represented as having done so, 
 on account of the miracles which he wrought in his 
 own person, to which alone he himself appealed ; and 
 never once to a single occurrence related in these spu- 
 rious chapters ; nor were any of them, mirabile dictu> 
 ever appealed to as proofs of his mission by any of his 
 apostles. All this is utterly inexplicable, except upon 
 the principle of these chapters being the interpola- 
 tions of a later period. How different likewise are 
 the public exhibitions contained in these narratives, 
 from the singularly cautious and reserved manner in 
 which our Lord spoke of himself as being the Mes- 
 siah, till just as he was upon the point of being of- 
 fered up ! notwithstanding which, upon his performing 
 some of his miracles, the people could hardly be pre- 
 vented from taking him by force, and making him ti
 
 48 
 
 temporal king, though never with the smallest allu- 
 sion 'to any of the miraculous occurrences detailed in 
 the chapters in question. 
 
 I shall add one more observation upon the manner 
 in which the author of the two chapters falsely, as I 
 must contend, ascribed to St. Matthew, deals with an- 
 cient prophecy: and I mention this particularly, be- 
 cause you seem to lay considerable stress upon the 
 names given, and supposed to be given, to our blessed 
 Lord, as proofs of his being God, though without 
 particularizing them, which the limits you prescribed 
 to yourself undoubtedly would not admit of. The 
 prophecy in question is that of Isaiah vii. 14, al- 
 ready mentioned : " Behold a virgin shall conceive, 
 and bear a son, and shall (that is the virgin shall) call 
 his name Immanuel," which this writer thus applies ; 
 " The angel of the Lord appeared unto him (that is 
 Joseph) in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, 
 fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ; for that 
 which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost : and 
 she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his 
 name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their 
 sins." The corresponding chapter of Luke, ver. 31, 
 represents the angel to have appeared to Mary, and 
 to have said to her ; " Behold, thou shalt conceive in 
 thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his 
 name Jesus." The writer of the first chapter ascribed 
 to St. Matthew then proceeds; "Now air this was 
 done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of
 
 65 
 
 the root of his system. The first Christians were 
 commanded to pray for the Holy Spirit, but never id 
 the Holy Spirit, and they were never directed to pray 
 for it to any one but the Father. It is stated, that it 
 should be poured out upon them, and that they who 
 possessed it should perform miracles, and signs, and 
 wonders ; from which it appears to me to be obvious, 
 that it only means a power, and not a person. Thus 
 Elisha is represented as having requested, that he 
 might have a double portion of the spirit of Elijah, 
 and it is said that the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha; 
 meaning manifestly, not a person belonging to Elijah 
 called his spirit, making two persons in one being, 
 but the same power which Elijah had possessed be- 
 fore he was separated from Elisha. The spirit of 
 God, instead of being a distinct person, is expressly 
 compared to the spirit of a man, in I Cor. ii. 11, 
 where it is said ; ' ' For what man knoweth the things 
 of a man, but the spirit of a man xvhich is in him ? In 
 like manner also none knoweth the things of God, but 
 the Spirit of God." Upon the whole, therefore, I 
 conceive myself fully justified in considering the ma- 
 king of the Holy Spirit a person, to be a great corrup- 
 tion, introduced into Christianity by human invention, 
 without any warrant for it in the sacred writings. 
 
 You tell me, that as to the figurative term 'the word,' 
 I shall readily admit that the term 'Father' is figura- 
 tive too. I accede to this, believing both to be figu- 
 rative. I consider the term ' the word' to be figura-
 
 66 
 
 tively applied to Christ, and that he is figuratively 
 called ' the word/ meaning the word of God ; because 
 that he, the greatest and most illustrious of God's 
 messengers and prophets, came to declare the word of 
 God more fully, and completely, to mankind, than all 
 his predecessors : so that not the Jews only, to whom 
 alone the dispensation he came to supersede was ad- 
 dressed, but all the nations of the earth, might know, 
 and be well assured, of God's gracious designs by the 
 ministration of this his most favoured minister and 
 prophet, to raise them all from the dead, and to confer 
 upon them immortal happiness in a future state : and 
 it appears to me, to be not at all more strange, that he 
 should thereforebe called figuratively the * word of God,' 
 than that Quintus Fabius Maximus should have been 
 called * the shield of Rome,' because he more success- 
 fully defended the Romans against the Carthaginians 
 than a.ny of their generals who had preceded him. 
 
 I consider the word ' Father ' to be figurative as ap- 
 plied to God, not as having begotten either Christ, or 
 other men, who are also frequently called his sons, 
 in the literal sense of the word, which would be ab- 
 surd ; but because he has created both ourselves and 
 Christ, whose brethren we are declared to be, and 
 joint heirs with him in a future state, and has pro- 
 tected, provided for, and instructed us with a paternal 
 love, infinitely exceeding that, which any human father 
 has for his offspring. The word * begotten ' is also fre ? 
 quently used figuratively, and applied in like manner
 
 both to Christ and other men: for instance, in the epi- 
 stle of Paul to Philemon, ver. 10, where the apostle 
 calls Onesimus his " son, whom he had begotten in 
 his bonds;" and in 1 Peter, i. 3, where that apostle 
 blesses " the Gad and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who, (he says) according to his great mercy, 
 hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 
 
 You state, that when you urged, that the Jews ac- 
 cused Christ of blasphemy, for saying that he was the 
 son of God, you did not mean to assert, that the mere 
 word * blasphemy' shewed they considered the term 'son 
 of God' to mean one truly divine ; but that their own in- 
 terpretation of the charge shewed, that they took the 
 word in the highest sense, " thou being a man makest 
 thyself equal with God." I cannot by any means 
 admit this, and for the best possible reason, namely, 
 that our Lord himself, whom I prefer to every other 
 commentator, demonstrates by his reply, that he did 
 not consider them as having put this construction upon 
 his words ; but merely as having supposed, without 
 foundation, that he made himself a God, in the infe- 
 rior sense of the word ; for he replies, " Is it not writ- 
 ten in your law, I said ye are Gods ? If he called those 
 Gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scrip- 
 ture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father 
 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blas- 
 phemest, because I said I was the son of God ?" The 
 meaning of which, as I have observed already, is 
 
 F 2
 
 68 
 
 plainly this : If I had said I was God, or a God, 
 the prophets of old, to whom the word of God came, 
 were so called : but you are mistaken ; I said no such 
 thing, but merely that I was the soti of God ; and do 
 ye stone me for this ? If you can suppose him to 
 have considered them, as having rightly understood 
 him to have meant by the words " I and my Father 
 are one (Iv)" that he only thereby denoted himself to 
 be the son of God, which he declares to have been 
 his meaning, still his reply clearly shews, that he did 
 not think, that when they imagined, from his using 
 these words, and meaning by them that he was the 
 son of God, he made himself God, or a God, they there- 
 by considered him as making himself equal to, or as 
 one being with, Jehovah The most High ; for in that 
 case he could never have replied in his own justification, 
 that the prophets were called Gods ; it being universally 
 agreed that they were never called so in any such sense 
 as this, and consequently their objection would, upon 
 that supposition, have remained in its full force, with- 
 out any adequate answer to it. It should be remarked, 
 too, that when he shews them, that by saying 'he and 
 his Father were one,' he only designed to represent 
 himself as the son of God ; and the context, taken 
 altogether, proves that nothing like equality or unity 
 of being could be intended ; the unity of which he 
 had spoken could only have been an unity of design. 
 and intention, with his Father, whose will, and not 
 his own, he had come to do in all things.
 
 69 
 
 Your conception of the sense of this passage ap- 
 pears to proceed partly upon the supposition, that the 
 Jews, to have charged our Lord with having been guilty 
 of blasphemy deserving of death, must have thought 
 he made himself equal with God (to use your own 
 expression) : but it is undeniable, that it is not at all 
 necessary to make this supposition ; for Naboth was 
 adjudged to be guilty of blasphemy deserving of death, 
 upon the false charge that he had blasphemed God 
 and the king, though no one ever supposed, that he 
 intended to make himself equal to either ; and our 
 Saviour was held by the high -priest to have been 
 guilty of blasphemy worthy of death, because he had 
 informed him that he was the Christ, the son of the 
 Blessed, and that hereafter they would see him, the 
 son of man, sitting on the right hand of power, and 
 coming with the clouds of Heaven. (Mark xiv. 6 1, &c.) 
 In this there is no allusion at all to any equality with 
 God, but rather the contrary ; for he at whose right 
 hand, or left hand, others have the honour to sit, is 
 always considered the principal, and superior. So it 
 is said in the same evangelist, (chap. xvi. 10,) that 
 our Lord was taken up into heaven, and sat at the 
 right hand of God ; which would be an extraordinary 
 expression upon the trinitarian scheme, as it would 
 be declaring, either that he sat at his own right hand, 
 or that he was not God. Why are we without any 
 necessity to raise and encounter all these difficulties 
 and absurdities ? Upon the Unitarian system there is
 
 70 
 
 nothing difficult in it. Whether our Saviour be re- 
 presented as sitting on the right hand of power, on 
 the right hand of God, or on the right hand of the 
 Father, the whole is perfectly clear, rational, and in- 
 telligible. Moreover, it does not appear, that the 
 Jews at any time had the least conception, that the 
 Messiah was to be equal to Jehovah their God : Moses 
 declared that the Messiah should be a prophet like bim- 
 self, whom the Lord theirGod should raise up unto them 
 from the midst of them of their brethren : and at the 
 time of our Lord's coming, they all thought, that he 
 was to be a great conquering prince, whose kingdom 
 was to be of this world, and who was to deliver them 
 out of the hands of the Romans, and had no idea 
 of his spiritual kingdom ; air error which was not 
 corrected tijl after his resurrection, even amongst his 
 own disciples, and continued to prevail amongst the 
 rest of his countrymen who were not converted to 
 Christianity, till the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 their final dispersion by the Roman power. 
 
 In short, there is not a particle of evidence to be 
 found in the Scriptures, that the Jews expected their 
 Messiah to be equal to God. The word ' son of 
 God * does not imply equality ; but on the contrary, 
 and particularly according to the ideas of the Eastern 
 nations, inferiority and subjection : and our Lord him- 
 self, with great modesty and humility, used to be fre- 
 quently inculcating his own inferiority to, and entire 
 dependence upon, the Father, by expressly declaring,
 
 that of himself he could do nothing; that his Father 
 who dwelt in him did the works ; that his Father was 
 greater than himself ; that to sit on his right hand, 
 and on his left, was not his to give ; that he knew 
 not the day of judgement (Mark xiii. 32). And if 
 any one should be weak enough to suppose, (though 
 according to the trinitarian hypothesis his divine and 
 human nature were so united, as to constitute one 
 and the same person,) that nevertheless there is a corn*- 
 plete union, and yet no proper union at all ; so that 
 the one nature might know what the other nature was 
 quite ignorant of, and the human nature might not 
 have been intrusted by the divine nature with this 
 great secret ; which is in fact not only the most ridi- 
 culous of all subterfuges, but is also quite unworthy 
 of the character of our blessed Lord, in whose mouth 
 there was no guile, he takes away all pretence for 
 such a forced, and unnatural construction of his words, 
 by adding, that his Father ONLY knew of that day 
 (Matt. xxiv. 36) : thereby excluding from all know- 
 ledge of the day of judgement both his own divine 
 nature, (supposing he had any such,) and also the 
 Holy Ghost, supposing the latter to be a person. 
 
 I am aware, that a very learned and ingenious trini* 
 tarian writer of the present day has attempted to ex- 
 plain this text, with a view to prevent the fatal effect 
 which it obviously has upon the trinitarian system ; 
 in which it seems to me, that it is impossible to read 
 what he says with ordinary attention, without being
 
 n 
 
 i 
 
 convinced, that he has totally failed. He appears him- 
 self to have been fully sensible of the difficulty he had 
 to encounter, and tells us that it is a solitary text ; 
 but considers it probable (for he expresses himself 
 very tenderly upon the subject) that the ignorance of 
 which our Lord speaks was not absolute ; but that he 
 spoke in his official capacity ; and that this was not 
 amongst the things communicated to him as the 
 commissioned messenger of the Father. After noticing 
 a very unsatisfactory interpretation of Dr. Macknight, 
 (which he disapproves of,) he says, " Would it not 
 be simpler to say at once, that not to know, signifies 
 not to have official commission to make known ? " He 
 says " that the Son did not know the day in this way. 
 He knew it not in his official capacity as the com- 
 missioned ambassador of Heaven to men. It formed 
 no part of the divine communications to him in this 
 character." This view, he says, " had always appear- 
 ed to him to be much more rational and satisfactory 
 than that which is commonly given, that he was ig- 
 norant of it in his human nature, although he knew 
 it in his divine nature;" a mode of explanation with 
 which, he candidly admits, he had never been well 
 satisfied. But will such of his attentive readers, as are 
 disposed to think for themselves, feel satisfied with 
 either, or think either the one or the other, to be at all 
 satisfactory ? The learned writer's own mode of ex- 
 planation may appear to himself to be extremely plau- 
 sible, but unfortunately it will not bear the touch of
 
 Ithuriel's spear ; for on applying to it one of the plain- 
 est, and most obvious, of all, critical tests, namely, that 
 of putting the words he makes use of, instead of those 
 used by our Saviour, into the text, and considering 
 how the whole passage will read with them, the true 
 and genuine features of the author's new mode of ex- 
 planation will start up immediately. Doing this, the 
 passage will read as follows: " But of that day, and 
 that hour, no one hath an official commission to make 
 them known, no not the angels which are in heaven, 
 neither the son, but my Father only." According to 
 this reading the Father would, for the first time, be re- 
 presented as commissioned; and we should naturally 
 feel the utmost anxiety to be informed by what supe- 
 rior, that greatest, wisest, and most excellent of beings, 
 whose name is not to be pronounced without the most 
 profound awe and reverence, who is original, self-ex- 
 istent, is over all, above all, and in us all, the only 
 true God, to whom we are indebted for sending his 
 son Jesus Christ to deliver us from sin and death, 
 could by any possibility be supposed, for one moment, 
 by any of his erring creatures, to have been commis- 
 sioned. This would be a discovery most marvellous, 
 most wonderful, reserved for the nineteenth century, 
 and for a protestant divine. At the very first glance, 
 we perceive it to be big with absurdity. The learned 
 writer perhaps will contend, that the words may be 
 aken in different senses, as applied to different mem- 
 bers of the sajjae sentence; and that as applied to the
 
 74 
 
 Father, it must be understood that he did know the 
 day of judgement, originally, and absolutely. But this 
 will not answer his purpose; for upon this construction 
 the Holy Ghost stands excluded from that knowledge, 
 as well as the supposed divine Logos. Thus fares 
 this new way of arriving at simplicity, by mixing up 
 together ingredients of heterogeneous, and discordant 
 natures ; of explaining not only without, but against 
 all authority the word 'knoweth' (o/Sv), which is a 
 single word, conveying a plain and simple meaning, 
 which every one instantly understands, by introdu- 
 cing the long and complex circumlocution of having a 
 commission to make known, which gives a meaning 
 totally different, a meaning which no one annexes 
 to the word actually employed. He afterwards pro- 
 ceeds to state more directly, that the Son did not 
 know the day of judgement in his official character, 
 as the commissioned ambassador of Heaven to men, 
 that it formed no part of the divine communications 
 to him in that character ; ^-as if this could be our blessed 
 lord's meaning, when he said positively, that he did 
 not know it ; a mode of construction which might 
 have been expected from some of the ancient Popish 
 writers in the tenth or the eleventh century, when 
 equivocation and mental reservation were considered 
 lawful and right to effect good purposes ; but which is 
 unworthy of the age in which we live, and of the cha- 
 racter of our blessed Lord, whose followers we afe, 
 degrading him to a supposed resemblance with a mere
 
 75 
 
 diplomatist, a character which has never been thought 
 very favourably of in any age for sincerity and plain 
 dealing. Should it be held, however, that persons of 
 this description are licensed sometimes to do, and say, 
 what honest men, in other classes of society, would 
 be disgraced by, I am much inclined to think notwith- 
 standing, that if an ambassador in the present day were 
 voluntarily, and deliberately, to affirm that he did not 
 know a thing, which it should afterwards clearly ap- 
 pear he did know, his reputation would not stand very 
 high afterwards, and would be in still worse odour, if 
 he should attempt to excuse himself by saying, that he 
 did not know it in his official character. In the pre- 
 sent instance there does not seem to have been any 
 occasion, any motive whatever, for our Lord to say he 
 did not know it, if he did. It would have been quite 
 sufficient for him to have said, That day is a secret, 
 which you are not at present to be informed of. In 
 no part of his conduct is there any appearance of this 
 double dealing, of expressing himself absolutely, and 
 at the same time meaning to speak, sometimes in one 
 character, and sometimes in another, without inform- 
 ing his hearers in which, or even intimating that he 
 appeared in two characters, or was addressing them in 
 a particular character only, that is, in a different sense 
 from that which his words imported. This is nearly 
 the same thing as the supposition that he spoke of 
 himself in his supposed different natures, and some- 
 times is to be understood as speaking of himself in
 
 76 
 
 his human nature, and sometimes in his divine na- 
 ture, without ever informing us in which, but leaving 
 us to find it out in the best manner we can. But if 
 he ever in reality spoke of himself by parts, or in dif- 
 ferent natures, in this very extraordinary way, how is 
 it, that when he speaks of doing things, which his hu- 
 man nature could not perform, he never alludes to his 
 divine nature ? If both were united in him, and both 
 necessary to enable him to perform certain parts of his 
 mission, it was as natural for him to speak of the one 
 as of the other ; and more particularly to speak of the 
 divine nature, when the subject matter was such, as to 
 be beyond the powers of the human nature: but we 
 never meet with a single instance of this kind. On 
 the contrary, he invariably ascribes all his miraculous 
 works to the power of the Father, and the divine na- 
 ture appears to have done nothing whatever. What 
 then was its use, and what was there done which 
 the power of the Father only, dwelling in the hu- 
 man nature, could not, and did not, actually accom- 
 plish ? 
 
 The trinitarians say, that a mere man could not ex- 
 ecute the office of universal judge at the day of judge- 
 ment and in this the Unitarians agree with them ; but 
 the former are inclined to go one step further, and to 
 suppose, that a man qualified and assisted by the Fa- 
 ther could not execute it. If this be the case, it must 
 be the supposed divine nature of Jesus Christ, that will 
 qualify and enable him to perform this mighty work;
 
 77 
 
 and it would be natural to allude to it for this purpose, 
 whenever the subject was started; but no. such thing 
 ever appears. On the contrary, his human nature, 
 and his human nature only, is alluded to on this oc- 
 casion. It is never said that he is appointed to this 
 office, because he has a divine nature, because he is 
 the divine Logos, or because he is the second person 
 in the Trinity ; but, as he says himself, because he is 
 the son of man: and the apostle Paul says, (Acts xvii. 
 30,31,) that " God hath appointed a day in which he 
 will judge the world in righteousness, by that man 
 whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given as- 
 surance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from 
 the dead;" speaking of him as one who had been, a 
 man, a mortal man, who like other men had died, and 
 who, though then raised from the dead, was still a 
 man, though in a glorified state: and not alluding, in 
 the most distant manner, to his being any thing 
 more. 
 
 The learned writer I have lately mentioned invites 
 his readers to apply, if they think fit, the words 'ab- 
 surd' and ' impossible' to the doctrine that God could 
 make our Lord, supposing him to have been a man 
 like ourselves, the future judge of the whole human 
 race. The learned writer was too wary a polemic to 
 make the assertion himself in direct terms, and there- 
 fore only insinuates it; but as it is possible that some 
 one may feel disposed to accept the invitation which 
 his ingenious author has so cautiously held, out, and,
 
 with a more adventurous spirit, hazard the assertion, 
 that the almighty God cannot qualify one of his crea- 
 tures to perform the office of supreme judge, upon 
 this great occasion,because, as he conceives, it would 
 be necessary for him to be acquainted with all their 
 thoughts, words, and actions, together with all the 
 springs, motives, and circumstances which have in- 
 fluenced them, -I shall take the liberty of making a 
 few observations upon this subject, as these conside- 
 rations may be thought calculated at first view to make 
 some impression, at least upon those who have not 
 been accustomed to such speculations. 
 
 It is a common thing for writers of this description 
 to allege, that a mere man cannot do this, and a 
 mere man cannot do that ; but they well know that 
 this is not the true question, but what GOD, who is 
 omnipotent and omniscient, can empower and enable 
 one of the human race to perform. A mere man, 
 we well know, cannot raise the dead; and yet both 
 Elijah and Elisha, when commissioned, and enabled, 
 by the Most High, did this under the old dispensa- 
 tion; and both Peter and Paul, under the new. A 
 mere man cannot know the heart, or the thoughts, of 
 any other man ; and yet one of the highly-favoured 
 prophets whom I have just mentioned, was empower- 
 ed to know the heart, and the thoughts, of his servant 
 Gehazi, when at a distance from him ; and also to 
 Enow whatever the king of Syria did, even in his bed- 
 chamber. The same great Being who thus enabled
 
 79 
 
 him to know the thoughts of one or two persons, 
 could unquestionably have enabled him to know the 
 thoughts of as many others as he pleased ; nay, if 
 such was his sovereign will, of the whole human race. 
 However some may be startled at this upon the first 
 view, yet the denial of it would amount to nothing 1 
 less, than prescribing bounds to Omnipotence, and li- 
 miting the Holy One of Israel. It would be reviving 
 the old cry of unbelief " Can God furnish a table 
 in the wilderness ? Can he give bread also ? Can he 
 provide flesh for Ms people ?" Psalm Ixxviii. 19, 20. 
 What we are here to consider is, whether the Almighty 
 God can empower, and enable, the blessed Jesus, in a 
 glorified state, with his mental powers enlarged and 
 improved beyond all that the utmost stretch of the 
 human intellect in this present infant and imperfect 
 state can form a conception of, to know the thoughts, 
 and read the hearts, and past actions, of the whole 
 human race, if this should be necessary to qualify him 
 to pass sentence upon every one of them, either at the 
 same time, or within a given space of longer or 
 shorter duration, as shall appear to his the Father's 
 infinite wisdom to be for the best. This power, vast 
 and extraordinary as it may appear, would be still 
 finite, and, in comparison with Omnipotence and Om- 
 niscience, not equal to a grain of sand, compared to 
 the entire globe of the earth. 
 
 The number of men who have already existed, and 
 who will probably be called into existence hereafter,
 
 80 
 
 in this sublunary world, before the final consumma- 
 tion of all things, is, it is true, so vast, as at first view 
 almost to overwhelm the minds of finite and short- 
 sighted mortals, and to make them, before they re- 
 cover from their astonishment, and take a cooler, and 
 more comprehensive, survey of the subject, almost 
 ready to accede to the learned author's invitation, and 
 to pronounce at once, that it would be affirming what 
 is absurd and impossible, to say, that even Omnipo- 
 tence and Omniscience itself could reveal to one born 
 of a woman, or even to any created and finite being, 
 all the thoughts, words, and actions, together with all 
 the springs, motives, and circumstances which have 
 influenced them, in all their endless, as he is pleased 
 to term them, combinations, so as to qualify him to 
 judge, and pass sentence upon, them all, according to 
 what they have done in the body ; and that nothing 
 short of infinite knowledge is necessary for this pur- 
 pose, which we can never suppose to be communicated 
 to a creature himself finite. But when the impres- 
 sion made by the magnitude of the number, which 
 however great is still finite, has a little worn off, and 
 we begin to consider the nature of that great Being, 
 (whose power we were almost rash enough to limit,) the 
 immensity of his works, and the wonders of his ways ; 
 when we consider the heavens which are the work of 
 his fingers, the moon and the stars which he has or- 
 dained, we cannot help trembling at the thought of 
 setting bounds to his wisdom or his ppwer, or of com-
 
 I 
 
 paring with the infinity of his knowledge, that ex- 
 ceedingly small, and finite portion of it, which would 
 be necessary to qualify our blessed Lord for the duties 
 of the office in question, great and multifarious as they 
 must necessarily be, and which he can with ease com- 
 municate to him, either all at the same time, or in 
 succession, with inconceivable rapidity, for the full 
 performance of them, either within the compass of a 
 day, or in any shorter or longer time, which his so- 
 vereign wisdom may have determined upon, as most 
 fit and proper. If we extend our views no further 
 than to our own solar system, or to the sun itself, 
 which is in the centre of it ; his magnitude, as being 
 about a million of times larger than the globe on 
 which we dwell, fills our minds with wonder, and 
 sinks our own world into comparative insignificance. 
 Shall we say, then, that the mighty Architect, who 
 made this glorious luminary, cannot qualify one of 
 his creatures to govern, or judge, the inhabitants of an 
 exceedingly small part of one of the innumerable pro- 
 vinces of his vast dominions, not exceeding in size 
 one millionth part of this resplendent sphere ? But 
 our minds may take a still wider range, and contem- 
 plate that endless profusion of similarly great and 
 glorious orbs of light, which fill the heavens around 
 us, one of the nearest of which, namely the fixed star 
 Arcturus, if the observations recently made voon it 
 by a learned professor of the present day are any thing 
 like correct, and if they are not, it is because it is still 
 
 G
 
 82 
 
 more distant, is at the enormous distance of twenty 
 millions of millions and sixty thousands of millions 
 of miles from us; a distance so vast, that a cannon-ball, 
 preserving all its original velocity, would be about 
 five millions of years reaching it. Who will take 
 upon him to affirm, that this immense space is a mere 
 vacuum ? The majority of philosophers, or at least a 
 considerable number of them, have, I apprehend, 
 thought the contrary ; and with whatever substance 
 it may be filled, beings may be formed by almighty 
 power, capable of enjoying in it life and happiness : 
 every mile of it may be inhabited by ethereal beings, 
 untangible by mortal touch, invisible to mortal eye, 
 as fully, and completely, as any mile upon the surface. 
 of the earth. Even our atmosphere, which is much 
 more extensive than the earth and sea, may, for any 
 thing we know to the contrary, be similarly peopled : 
 As the poet says, " Millions of spiritual creatures may 
 walk the earth unseen, both when we wake, and when 
 we sleep," all having their respective limits, and inca- 
 pable of interfering with, or of being conscious of, the 
 presence of each other, by fixed laws of their nature, 
 which cannot be altered, but by the interposition of 
 that Almighty Power which prescribed, and can sus- 
 pend, or vary, their operation : as when the servant of 
 Elisha the prophet beheld the city in which they were, 
 surrounded by the armies, and by the horses, and cha- 
 riots, of the king^of Syria, and upon expressing his ap- 
 prehensions to his master, was answered, " Fear not,
 
 83 
 
 for they that be with Us, are more than they that be 
 with them. And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I 
 pray thee open his eyes that he may see ; and the Lord 
 opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw ; and 
 behold the mountain was full of horses, and chariots 
 of fire, round about Elisha." 2 Kings, vi. 15, 16. 
 When we reflect that there are other stars of thesame 
 description with that which I have just mentioned, a<J- 
 cording to all appearance innumerable, all perhaps 
 equally remote from each other, and multitudes of 
 them, I had almost said infinitely more distant from 
 us, and each probably giving light, and heat, to other 
 systems, as extensive and glorious as our own, the hu- 
 man intellect sinks at once, and acknowledges with 
 the profoundest humility, veneration, and awe, that 
 the entire globe which we inhabit, and all that it con- 
 tains, which our own littleness prompts us to call 
 great, are not in comparison what a drop of water is 
 to the ocean. When we look downwards too, for 
 the works of our God are as wonderful in the little 
 world as in the great, and consider that every drop of 
 that ocean teems with life, and, as well as all the other 
 parts of nature, is full of countless multitudes of his 
 creatures, enjoying their different measures of being, 
 and of happiness, according to his wise and benevo- 
 lent appointment; how difficult would it be to forbear, 
 even if we were desirous of it, from concluding his 
 works to be like himself INFINITE ; extending through 
 all the boundless regions of space, without number, 
 
 G2
 
 84 
 
 without measure, and without termination ! Shall we 
 say then, as we are invited to do by this writer *, that 
 the Almighty, omniscient, and infinite, author of all, 
 cannot qualify a finite being, one of the human race 
 in an exalted and glorified state, and endued with en- 
 larged faculties and powers, to judge a finite, and in- 
 conceivably small, proportion of the inhabitants of 
 this diminutive speck, which is in itself an incon- 
 ceivably small proportion of his immense dominions? 
 The learned writer's statement, that if we do not con- 
 sider a being invested with this power to be infinite, 
 we cannot prove the Deity to be so, is any thing but 
 correct : for in the one case we can see no bounds, no 
 limits, no superior ; in the other, all is delegated, li- 
 mited, inferior, and finite. This seems to be a most 
 extraordinary specimen of logic, which, however it may 
 for a moment have misled the learned writer, is not 
 at all likely, I should conceive, to be adopted as legiti- 
 mate, by any impartial, and attentive, reader. 
 
 Having shewn, as it appears to me, satisfactorily, 
 that there is nothing absurd, or impossible, or im- 
 probable, in the position, that God will, as he has de- 
 clared, judge all mankind by the man whom he hath 
 ordained for that purpose, supposing him to be no- 
 thing more, than a highly-glorified individual of the 
 human race, endued with supereminent knowledge 
 and power, conferred upon him by the Almighty So- 
 vereign and Lord of all, to qualify him for the impor- 
 
 : -^ 
 
 * Mr. Wardlaw.
 
 tant office to which he is destined, even upon the sup- 
 position that he is to exercise it alone, I should, if I 
 had an opportunity, ask the learned writer whether, 
 after all, he is certain, that our blessed Lord, though 
 appearing in the character of supreme judge upon this 
 great occasion, may not be assisted by others acting 
 by his direction, and under his superintendance, and 
 control, all of them eminently qualified for the situa- 
 tions they are to fill, and enabled, by the communica- 
 tion of power from on high, to exercise their respec- 
 tive offices with every requisite degree of information 
 and ability ? May he not be aided by hundreds, per- 
 haps by thousands, possibly by millions, acting in this 
 manner under him, to accomplish the mighty work ? 
 We have it in his own words, that his apostles shall 
 hereafter sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel. Matt. xix. 28. We are informed 
 also by the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2, that the saints 
 shall judge the world : and though the learned writer 
 in question can scarcely think it possible, that our 
 blessed Lord, unless he is infinite, can judge ordinary 
 men, the same apostle asks his Corinthian disciple?, 
 whether they do not know, that they shall judge 
 a7tgels ; (Ib. ver. 3.) meaning, perhaps, some of the 
 messengers of God, who lived under the ancient dis- 
 pensation . May not this be one of the reasons, why 
 the dead in Christ are to rise first, that a competent 
 number of them, havingbeen previously judged them- 
 selves by our Lord, may be qualified and appointed 
 to act under him, in judging the world at large ? 
 and after this awful and stupendous task shall have 
 been fully accomplished, may not our blessed Lord,
 
 approving of all that has been done, proceed to make 
 the final separation between the righteous and the 
 Hacked; and after having placed the former at his 
 right hand, and the latter at his left, acting in the 
 high character of supreme, and universal judge, to 
 which his father has elevated him, pronounce the 
 general and irrevocable sentence, saying unto the 
 righteous, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
 the kingdom which was prepared for you from the 
 foundation of the world;" and to the wicked, "De- 
 part from me, ye accursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
 pared for the devil and his angels* ?" 
 .:i The learned writer says that this text (Matthew 
 xxiv. 36) is a. solitary text : but its being solitary (if it 
 were so) would not destroy its force, when we consider 
 upon what high authority it stands ; that it is uncontra- 
 dicted and undisputed ; and that its words are as ex- 
 press, and clear, as any in the sacred writings : but in 
 negativing the omniscience of our blessed Lord, and 
 of the Holy Ghost considered as a person, it is only 
 
 ' * The Author tnists that he shall not be thought to entertain such 
 unworthy notions of the character and attributes of that transcendently 
 glorious tind infinitely merciful and gracious being, who is love itself, the 
 Father of all mercies, and God of ail consolation, whose anger endureth 
 but for a moment, and whose loving kindnesses and tender mercies are 
 over all his works, as to have intended, by irrevocable sentence, any 
 thing more, than a sentence, which being once pronounced, will certainly 
 be car lied into effect: or that by the everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels, he understands punishment, which is, in the strict 
 modern se se of the word, to be eternal, and never to have an end. He con- 
 siders all pu lishment to be remedial, and therefore believes that, however 
 long, and however intense, and dreadful, it maybe, it wilh. when it shall 
 have accomplished its purpose, cease. He knows that the word rendered 
 everlasting, is in scripture frequently employed to denote spaces of very 
 long, and indefinite duration, some of which have actually ended, and 
 others we are informed will also arrive at their respective terminations, 
 at some distant, though unknown periods.
 
 87 
 
 \ 
 
 solitary, as furnishing this particular proof of it, which 
 is not given elsewhere : hut the learned writer ought 
 to recollect, that the omniscience of both is in effect 
 equally negatived ; and upon the same authority, in 
 John xvii. 3, where our Lord, in conformity with his 
 previous language in the tenth chapter of the same 
 evangelist, (shewing that he did not claim to be God 
 at all, but only the Son of God,) says, in his prayer to 
 the Father for his disciples, "And this is life eternal, 
 that they might know thee the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent:" thereby expressly 
 affirming the Father, and the Father only, to be the 
 true God, and excluding both himself, and the Holy 
 Ghost, from any participation in the Godhead; which, 
 as omniscience, as well as omnipotence, and omni- 
 presence, are essential attributes of true Deity, and of 
 true Deity only, negatives the possession of omniscience, 
 omnipotence, or omnipresence, by either of them. I 
 have no conception, my dear Sir, how it is possible, in 
 the face of this text, that your opinion, that our Lord 
 claims true Deity, can be maintained for a moment. 
 To this may be added, if necessary, another text equal- 
 ly conclusive, which, if any one should say, that it does 
 not rest upon the same authority, must be allowed by 
 all, to rank the very next in order to it, and to be at 
 all events infinitely superior to that of all the fathers, 
 councils, and synods, put together: I mean, 1 Cor.viii. 
 4 6, where the apostle Paul says, " We know that 
 an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none 
 other God but one ; for though there be that are called 
 gods, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but 
 unto us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
 
 all things, and we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
 by .whom are all things, and we in him." Here the 
 apostle declares to us, that there is but one God, and 
 informs us who he is ; namely, the Father ; and that 
 there is but one Lord, or master ; and also informs us 
 who he is, namely, Christ ; excluding from the God- 
 head, (as he our Lord and master had himself done,) 
 both Christ, and the Holy Ghost ; and affirming, that 
 the Father was that one God ; which is exactly the 
 same as saying in the words of our blessed Lord, that 
 the Father was the only God, or the only true God ; 
 which is the same thing. Now if the Father be the 
 only true God, as our Lord declares ; if there is but 
 one God, and that one God is the Father, as the 
 apostle Paul declares, it follows as clearly as if writ- 
 ten with a sun-beam, that neither our blessed Lord, 
 northe Holy Spirit, (that is, the Trinitarian Holy Spirit 
 considered as a distinct person,) can be God ; and 
 that neither the one, nor the other, can be possessed 
 of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, which 
 are the essential attributes of God, and of God only. 
 
 It is of the greatest consequence to remark likewise 
 in this place, that neither our Lord, in either of the 
 texts quoted from St. John, nor the apbstle Paul, in 
 that quoted from 'the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
 can possibly be practising the double dealing, which 
 has been so unjustly imputed to the former, of speak- 
 ing of himself generally, as an entire person, and yet, 
 without any notice or intimation of it to his hearers, 
 saying, what he knew was only applicable to one of his 
 two supposed natures ; for the language used in ail 
 three of these passages would as effectually exclude his
 
 89 
 
 divine nature, if he had any such, and also the Holy 
 Ghost, if considered to be a person, as his human na- 
 ture. It being impossible therefore to impute to him, 
 or to the apostle, any such double dealing in either of 
 the three texts in question, why should he, without 
 any proof or presumption, be supposed to have prac- 
 tised it upon other occasions where his words are clear 
 and manifest, and there is no allusion whatever to 
 any second nature ? as in John xiv. 28, " If ye loved 
 me ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto the 
 Father, for my Father is greater than I;" and the like. 
 If the Trinitarian, misled by an ardent though honest 
 zeal for his system, which cannot stand without adopt- 
 ing this interpretation, objectionable as it is in itself, 
 and destitute as it is of all authority, can make up his 
 mind to embrace it, he must excuse the Unitarian, who, 
 in the equallyhonest exercise of his judgment, has arrived 
 at the opposite conclusion, from following his example. 
 In answer to my quotation from John xvii. 1 1, ' to 
 shew that our Lord did not intend to assert any unity 
 of nature with the Father, because he prayed that his 
 disciples might be one, as he and his father were ; you 
 take it for granted I shall admit, that this expression 
 in many places means not equality, but humble imi- 
 tation of a grand model. I admit most readily, that 
 it does not any where mean equality with God ; but 
 I am not aware of any places where it is used to de- 
 note humble imitation of a grand model, though pos- 
 sibly there may be such. The text you cite, " Be ye
 
 90 
 
 perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect," appears 
 to me to be not at all in point ; for when we exhort one 
 person to be perfect, as another is perfect, whether 
 the latter be understood to be God or man, we ob- 
 viously mean, that the former is inferior to, and less 
 perfect than, the latter : but when we desire that A 
 may be one with B, the only object of our wish is, 
 that he may unite with, or join him ; and there is no- 
 thing in the expression itself indicative either of equa- 
 lity, or inferiority ; for one person may join, or unite 
 with, another person who is his equal, for the accom- 
 plishment of some great purpose, which they both 
 have in view, as he may with another who is his su- 
 perior, for the like purpose ; for which reason, if there 
 be nothing else to shew, that one of them is superior 
 to the other, the expression of itself proves nothing. 
 But if we concede for a moment that it means an 
 humble imitation of a grand model, applying your 
 own standard in both instances, it will follow, that 
 Christ's being one with his Father implied his humble 
 imitation of the Father as his grand model ; and con- 
 sequently his inferiority to the model he proposed to 
 himself for his imitation, and that he prayed that his 
 disciples, who were inferior to him, might imitate him 
 as theirs, in like manner. 
 
 If to the eleventh verse, which I quoted before, you 
 will have the goodness to add the twentieth, twenty- 
 first, and twenty-second verses of the same chapter, 
 $Jiey will still more strongly illustrate the nature of
 
 91 
 
 Christ's union with the Father. In these verses our 
 Lord prays, that not only his immediate followers, but 
 that all who might be converted by their means, might 
 be one ; that as his Father was in him, and he in his 
 Father, they also might he one in his Father, and 
 himself ; and for this purpose, that the world might 
 believe, that the Father had sent him, that is, might 
 believe his Gospel ; meaning, (as it appears to me,) 
 that all should be one, or united, in publishing the joy- 
 ful tidings of the Gospel to the world. Then he says, 
 that the very same glory which the Father had given 
 him, (meaning, I conceive, the glory of preaching and 
 spreading the Gospel, or the good tidings of the Fa- 
 ther's gracious designs towards mankind,) that very 
 same glory he had delegated to them ; that they might 
 be one ; that is, united in this great work, as he 
 and his Father were one, or united in the same work ; 
 for it is the very same union that is ascribed to both. 
 From the whole taken together, the meaning seems 
 to me to shine forth with unclouded lustre, and to be 
 hardly capable of being mistaken, 
 i I cannot discover in the Scriptures any proof of an 
 union between the Father and the Son, which springs 
 .(as you term it) from identity of substance ; and you 
 .have not cited any authorities for this kind of union. 
 To the best of my remembrance, there is not in the 
 whole compass of the sacred writings, any thing like 
 identity of substance between them, asserted or al- 
 luded to. This notion came into the Church, I believe,
 
 92 
 
 -:' ; .''- . ' .' "O . 
 
 from another source. You will find plentiful mention 
 of it in the writings of the Greek, and Latin fathers, 
 and in the creeds which were fabricated by them, and 
 their brethren. It would not have been omitted in the 
 Scriptures, if the inspired writers of those documents 
 had known any thing about it. 
 
 I am still of opinion, that the eighteenth verse of 
 the chapter of St. John which I have last quoted, 
 means, that Christ was sent into the world by his Fa- 
 ther, as the disciples were sent into the world by him. 
 Such is the plain meaning of the words, without al- 
 teration or addition ; and the interpretation you have 
 put upon them appears to me to be totally inadmis- 
 sible ; for I can by no means agree with you, that 
 mere resemblance in some points was meant, but 
 that in the most material thing of all, no resemblance 
 whatever was intended ; but on the contrary an essen- 
 tial difference, namely, that Christ was sent from 
 another world; which without proof, and in the 
 teeth of the direct and natural import of the words, 
 I cannot, with any colour of sound criticism, any 
 more credit than that his disciples were, the very 
 same words being equally applied to both. To make 
 them speak a different language, you have been obliged 
 .to add many words to them by way of explanation, 
 stating, that they (the disciples) were sent out into the 
 world on a mission of benevolence, as Christ was sent 
 into this world from another; thus making the whole 
 resemblance to consist in the addition you have made,
 
 93 
 
 of their both being sent on a mission of benevolence, 
 and inferring a difference where none was intended, 
 founded upon similar additions, namely, that the for- 
 mer were sent out into the world ; whereas Christ, you 
 add, was sent into this \VQi\&from another. But, my 
 dear Sir, you will acknowledge that this is mere as- 
 sertion, and cannot safely be received without proof ; 
 that by taking similar liberties with any author, we 
 may make him speak whatever sentiments we please : 
 but they will, after all, be our doctrines, and not his. 
 According to the words of our Saviour, who states his 
 position with great simplicity and clearness, both were 
 sent into the world ; and as his Father sent him into 
 the world, so he sent his disciples into the world. 
 Nothing can be more plain, and the difficulty is to 
 raise any doubt at all upon their construction in this 
 respect. 
 
 If it be asked, what is meant by ' the world,' into 
 which both were sent, it will not be necessary to go 
 far, to prove that the men of that age, and country, 
 were intended to be denoted by it, and not the ma- 
 terial world, which they occupied but a very small 
 part of. This also, according to every day's practice, 
 is the common interpretation that every one, learned 
 and unlearned, puts upon similar expressions, when 
 used in common conversation. But to shew it from 
 the Scriptures themselves, I shall refer to the twenty- 
 fifth verse of this very chapter, where our Saviour 
 says, " Holy Father, the world hath not known thee :" 
 See also John vii. 4, where it is said, " If thou do
 
 these things, shew thyself to the world." Again, ver.7, 
 " The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth ;~ 
 meaning manifestly in all three places, the men of 
 the age, and country, in which our great master de- 
 livered his heavenly precepts. 
 
 Having shewn, that Christ was sent into the world 
 by the Father, as the disciples were sent into the 
 world by him ; namely, by being sent among man- 
 kind with a divine commission to preach the Gospel, 
 when he says, John xvi. 28, "I came forth from the 
 Father, and am come into the world : again, I leave the 
 world, and go to the Father ;" which you lastly quote, 
 las favouring your explanation of the former words, 
 to shew that he was sent from another state of being 
 into this, upon the ground that all admit, that ne has 
 gone from this state into another ; I conceive that I 
 have much stronger reasons for interpreting the latter 
 passage by the former, than can be assigned for in- 
 terpreting the former by the latter, in the manner you 
 have attempted to explain them. I shall begin with 
 the first member of the sentence, " I am come forth 
 from the Father, and am come into the world." If by 
 this he meant, (as I contend, and think I have suc- 
 cessfully shewn,) that our Lord, having been admitted 
 to the knowledge of the divine counsels, was sent 
 forth amongst mankind to declare them, as his dis- 
 ciples, having been admitted to the knowledge of his 
 counsels and designs, were sent forth by him among 
 mankind to declare them in like manner on their 
 part, both passages harmonize completely, and both
 
 95 
 
 will also be found in unison with John i. 6 : " There 
 was a man sent from God, whose name was John : " 
 meaning, evidently, that John having had a commu- 
 nication with the Supreme Being, was sent with a di- 
 vine commission to mankind ; not that he came from 
 another world. You will find, that a very learned and 
 eminent Trinitarian, Dr. Doddridge, together with 
 other commentators, interprets c ascending up into 
 heaven' to mean, becoming acquainted with the di- 
 vine counsels, and not the going up into another world. 
 After making these observations, I think myself well 
 warranted in contending, that our Saviour's leaving 
 the world and going to the Father, in the passage in 
 question, could not have been designed to be taken 
 in the same sense as his coming, or that he was to go 
 in the same manner as he came, which was manifestly 
 not the case, he being to leave the world in a totally 
 different manner ; that is to say, by death, in which 
 sense every good man may be said to go to God : and 
 yet if it had been said of John, that he was a man sent 
 from God, and that he afterwards died and went to 
 God* no one would, I believe, have inferred that John 
 had been sent out of another world into this ; or in 
 other words, that he had pre-existed. The concluding 
 part of the verse therefore must be taken to have been 
 inserted for the purpose of communicating, by way of 
 additional information, what was shortly to happen to 
 him, without intending to represent any resemblance 
 between his coming and going.
 
 96 
 i 
 
 To shew how fallacious an interpretation may be 
 founded upon the supposition, that because he was to 
 go to the Father into another world by death, and a 
 subsequent resurrection and ascension, therefore he 
 must have come forth from the Father, and come into 
 the world from some other world, (as if God were not 
 every where, and as if he could not in this world have 
 been admitted into his presence, and have come forth 
 from him again in common parlance, as was the case 
 both with Moses, and with John, before him,) I shall 
 just ask, why, if the parallel be necessary and proper 
 in one of these instances, it is not so in all ? and why 
 is it not to be followed up to its full extent ? why is it 
 not to be inferred, that he came from God into this 
 world, in consequence of a previous death and resur- 
 rection in another, as he was to go unto him in conse- 
 quence of a previous death and resurrection in this ? But 
 I am afraid we shall make wild work, if, when coming, 
 and going, are mentioned in the same passage, we were 
 without further inquiry, to infer, that the party must 
 come, and go, in the same manner, and from, and to, 
 the same place. It would be easy to produce passages 
 in Scripture, where this mode of reasoning would have 
 a curious effect : See Job i. 2 1, " Naked came I out of 
 my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." 
 See also Eccl. xii. 7, "Then shall the dust return 
 to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return 
 unto God who gave it." Nevertheless, though the word 
 ' return,' which is a strong term, is made use of, no one
 
 07 
 
 i 
 
 supposes, that the spirit of man pre-existed, and came 
 forth from God out of another world, least of all will 
 the Trinitarian grant, that it returns to him as it came 
 from him, that is, into a^ state of non-existence. So 
 much for John xvi. 28. But after all, whatever might 
 have been its meaning, it is not a parallel passage 
 with John xvii. 18, and therefore not in point; for 
 the latter states a resemblance in express terms between 
 the sending of our Saviour into the world, and his 
 sending his disciples into it ; the words being " As 
 thou," meaning the Father, "hast sent me into the 
 world, even so, have I also, sent them into the world :'* 
 whereas, in John xvi. 28, it is not " As I came forth 
 from the Father, and am come into the world, so I 
 leave the world and go to the Father ; " but merely, I 
 do the one and I do the other : and the manner in 
 which the one, and the other, actually took place, 
 which were totally different, shews, that as no resem- 
 blance was expressed, so none was intended. 
 
 This leads me to consider John v. 22, 23, " For 
 the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son ; that all men should honour 
 the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that 
 honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father 
 which hath sent him." This passage, amongst others, 
 has been quoted to prove the equality of the Son with 
 the Father ; but will be found by whoever attentively 
 considers it, to be one of those which prove the con- 
 trary ; for what is the reason, and the only reason, as- 
 signed by our blessed Lord for men's honouring him, 
 even as they honour the Father ? Is it because he was 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 V. 
 
 equal to the Father? No such thing; but merely be- 
 cause the Father had committed all judgment to him ; 
 which shews, 1st, that he was appointed to this high 
 office, that men should so honour him ; which implies, 
 that if he had not been appointed to it mankind would 
 not have been required so to do, and would not have" 
 done it; 2dly, that the Son had not originally in him- 
 self the power of judging men, but that it was dele- 
 gated to him by the Father, and by the Father only, 
 nothing being said of the Holy Ghost having joined 
 in the commission ; that until he was invested with 
 it, he was not entitled to be honoured as the Father 
 was honoured ; that being assigned as the reason, and 
 the sole reason, for his being so honoured, and that 
 his being thus honoured, was in the character of uni- 
 versal judge of mankind, as representing his Father, 
 by whom he had been appointed to that office, which 
 is confirmed by the following words : " He that ho- 
 noureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who 
 hath $672* him ;" referring in like manner to his mis- 
 sion by the Father, as the reason why he who honour- 
 ed him not, honoured not the Father ; inasmuch as 
 he was the Father's messenger, and represented him. 
 The whole is perfectly clear, except upon trinitarian 
 principles ; and he that runs may read. The diffi- 
 culty is to explain the passage at all upon those prin- 
 ciples. We have always been accustomed to consider 
 judges, as entitled in that character to be honoured as 
 the sovereign they represent, and their judgments to 
 be treated with the same respect, as if they had been 
 pronounced by the sovereign himself; but notwith-
 
 99 
 
 standing this, no one considers the judge, who is thus 
 appointed, to be equal to the sovereign, who has ap- 
 pointed him. It is impossible to throw stronger light 
 upon this subject, than is done in the twenty-sixth 
 and twenty-seventh verses of the same chapter : " For 
 as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
 to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given 
 him authority to execute judgment also, because he 
 is the son of man." Here again we perceive, that the 
 Son had not originally and inherently, life in himself, 
 but it was given to him by the Father ; nor had he 
 originally, authority to execute judgment, but this 
 also was his Father's gift ; from which it is plain, 
 that the Father is represented as the great fountain 
 of life, and power, which emanate from him alone, 
 and are bestowed upon those to whom he thinks fit 
 to impart them, of whom our blessed Lord represents 
 himself to be one of the most highly favoured. There 
 is not the most distant hint of another person called 
 the Holy Ghost, having originally possessed either 
 life, or power, or having joined in bestowing them 
 upon the Son. All is stated to have proceeded from 
 the Father only, and there is no indication of any 
 thing like equality, or reciprocity, between them; but, 
 on the contrary, the whole exhibits a representation 
 of two persons standing in the relative situations of 
 superior and inferior, of giver and receiver, of prin- 
 cipal and agent. 
 
 You remark, that " you have arrived at the end of 
 your paper without urging those evidences of the 
 deity of Christ which arise from the ascription to him 
 
 H 2
 
 100 
 
 of every name, title, attribute, work, and honour, of 
 deity." Now really, my dear sir, I must say, that I 
 cannot find any where, that all these things have been 
 ascribed to him, greatly as he has been honoured and 
 exalted by his Father and our Father, by his God and 
 our God. Where is he ever declared to have origi- 
 nally, and inherently, life or power in himself ? Is he 
 any where represented as having either, except by com- 
 munication from, and as the gift of, his Father ? Can 
 he be said to have all the attributes of deity ascribed 
 to him, when one of the most essential of them, 
 namely omniscience, is denied to him, upon no less 
 authority than his own, by his expressly declaring that 
 he did not know the day of judgment, and that no 
 one knew it, but his Father only 9 when his possession 
 of another equally essential attribute of deity, that is 
 to say omnipotence, is likewise negatived upon the 
 same authority: " I can of mine own self do nothing:" 
 John v. 30. ? Is any thing like this ever said of the 
 Father ? And again, Luke xx. 23 : " To sit on my 
 right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give ; but 
 it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by 
 my Father ; not by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 nor by the Trinity, a term not to be found at all in 
 the Scriptures, nor by God, which, it would have been 
 pretended, included all the three persons who have 
 been supposed to constitute the Godhead ; but by the 
 Father. Lastly, when it is fully and expressly stated, 
 that his kingdom, and by consequence the authority 
 and power connected with it, are not to be eternal ; it 
 being declared in the clearest and most explicit terms
 
 101 
 
 by the apostle Paul, that this his kingdom, long as it 
 is to last, and glorious as it is to be, is to have an end, 
 when, the apostle informs us, he is to deliver it up ; 
 and does not say, to God, which the Trinitarians per- 
 haps might have contended, as has just been remark- 
 ed, meant their three supposed persons in the God- 
 head, though it would have been attended with the 
 awkwardness of averring a delivery of this kingdom 
 by himself to himself, neither does he say, to the 
 Trinity, nor to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor 
 to the Father and Holy Ghost, each of whom, sup- 
 posing them to be persons in the Godhead equal in 
 power and glory, would have been equally entitled to 
 receive it, but to the Father only ; all which things 
 are totally inconsistent with any thing like equality, 
 which, as it does not, nor can exist, cannot in my hum- 
 ble opinion, as you suppose, be essential to all our dear-r 
 est hopes, nor have the slightest influence upon them. 
 To me it appears inconceivable, how any one, after 
 duly considering, and maturely weighing, the plain and 
 positive declarations I have just cited, standing as they 
 do upon the highest, and most indisputable authority, 
 can help seeing, that it is the Father, and the Father 
 only, who is the great author, and sovereign disposer, 
 of all things, and that it is he, and he only, who claims, 
 and is entitled to, the attributes of true deity. 
 
 I have already shewn how fallacious the ascription 
 of names and titles is, to prove that the person to 
 whom they are ascribed is God. I could greatly en- 
 large the list I have furnished, if it were at all neces- 
 sary, and prove by this sort of reasoning, that Moses,
 
 and various other distinguished personages under the 
 old dispensation, were God, just as the Trinitarians 
 prove by it, that our blessed Lord was. Arguments 
 founded upon mere implication and inference, in which 
 we are extremely likely to deceive ourselves, and, as 
 every man's experience must have convinced him, do 
 deceive ourselves frequently, are pothing against the 
 plain declarations of Scripture. If the sacred writings 
 had informed us, that our Lord was a partaker of the 
 divine nature, how strongly would the Trinitarian have 
 argued from it, as furnishing decisive evidence, both 
 of his deity, and of his having two natures, a divine, as 
 well as human nature ! The inference, it would have 
 been said, was irresistible ; and in vain, I am afraid, 
 would the Unitarian have contended, that even this, 
 was no proof at all, and that, interpreting scripture by 
 scripture, the inference was rebutted by the declaration 
 of the apostle (2 Peter, i. 4), "That by the exceeding 
 great and precious promises that are given to us, we 
 also may be partakers of the divine nature." In fact, 
 the apostle does not say that our Lord is a partaker of 
 the divine nature, though he does happen to say, that 
 his disciples may, by the promises, if they escape the 
 corruption that is in the world : and I only cite the 
 passage to shew how likely we should be to deceive 
 ourselves, if we were to build any very important doc- 
 trine upon mere inference and implication. Our ana- 
 logies in such cases sometimes fail us at every step, 
 when we least expect it ; and we ought to proceed with 
 the utmost caution, even when there is nothing to be set 
 against them : but when they are in direct opposition
 
 to the clear, and express, declarations of our Lord him- 
 self, and his apostles, they are lighter than vanity, and 
 entitled to no consideration whatever. There can be no 
 doubt, that one plain declaration, proceeding from him 
 who cannot err, or from one authorized by him to make 
 it, which is the same thing, is worth a thousand infer- 
 ences made by his imperfect and fallible creatures, how- 
 ever great may be their reputation for learning, and ta- 
 lent, among their fellow-men, it being notorious, that 
 some of the most distinguished have made the greatest 
 blunders, and wandered the farthest from the truth. 
 
 Instead of making the express declarations contained 
 in the Gospel bend to opinions founded upon mere in- 
 ference and implication, and labouring to reconcile the 
 former to the latter, we ought, I conceive, to adopt the 
 converse of this mode of proceeding, and endeavour to 
 construe the passages from which we deduce our infer* 
 ences, in the deduction of which we may be easily mis- 
 taken, in conformity with the former, about which, 
 unless it be in some measure our own fault, we cannot 
 be well deceived ; and if we find ourselves unable to 
 accomplish it, to conclude that we have not yet sue? 
 ceeded in ascertaining their meaning. We may illus- 
 trate this by our blessed Lord's commandment respect- 
 ing prayer. He says in plain, and direct, terms (Matt, 
 vi. 6, $), " When thou prayest, pray to thy Father, 
 who is in secret ; and after this manner pray ye, Our 
 Father who art in heaven." Again (Luke xi. 2), 
 " When ye pray, say Our Father," a precept which he 
 has repeated in terms equally clear in many other places, 
 and has left us no direction to pray to any other person ;
 
 104 
 
 but we have contrived to infer, contrary to another ex- 
 press declaration *, from a figurative expression made 
 use of in John x. 30, which is however explained by 
 John xvii. 11, 21, 22, and shewn to mean no such 
 thing that he is equal to his Father; and from thente 
 we draw another inference, inconsistent with the for- 
 mer express command, that when we pray, we are as 
 frequently to say ' O God the Son,' and to pray to him. 
 We think also, that we have collected by inference from 
 other figurative passages, that there is another person 
 called the Holy Ghost, who is equal to the Father ; 
 and from thence we arrive at the further inference, that 
 we are also to pray to him, and when we pray, to say 
 
 * O God the Holy Ghost/ a practice equally inconsist- 
 ent with our Lord's express precept, with his own uni- 
 form example, and with the equally undisputed exam- 
 ple of all his apostles, none of whom ever delivered to 
 us any precept to pray to this supposed person, nor 
 appear to have ever prayed to him, even in one soli- 
 tary instance, themselves. When therefore we take 
 upon ourselves, on no other authority, than some sup- 
 posed analogies and inferences of our own, to depart 
 from the plain and express precepts of our blessed Lord, 
 and to say *O God the Son, have mercy upon us,' and 
 
 * O God the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us/ is it 
 wonderful, that some of our fellow Christians, who are 
 determined to obey the commandments of our Lord 
 himself, and not to defer to the mere opinions of un- 
 inspired and fallible men like themselves, should ask 
 us the question, "Who hath required this at your 
 
 * John xiv. 28. " For my Father is greater than I."
 
 105 
 
 hands ? " and can we without trembling, upon no bet- 
 ter authority than this, address those prayers to the 
 Son, which that Son himself has commanded us to 
 offer to his Father ? Can we forget, that this stupen- 
 dously great, and transcendently glorious, Being, to 
 whom the Son addressed his own prayers, and required 
 us to offer ours, is jealous of bis name, and " will not 
 give his glory to another ?" Can we do otherwise, 
 when we feel our minds duly impressed with this sen- 
 timent, and penetrated with the deepest awe, and the 
 most profound veneration, when contemplating his 
 greatness and perfections, than shudder, with the 
 plain unlettered men described by Tertullian, who he 
 says in his time always constituted the majority of be- 
 lievers, at the idea of adopting any doctrine interfering 
 with his. sole sovereignty, as they did, when that ancient 
 father, and his learned contemporaries, who were la- 
 bouring, however honestly in their own opinions, to cor- 
 rupt the primitive purity, and simplicity, of the Gospel, 
 endeavoured to introduce among them an ingenious 
 theory, somewhat, though not exactly, resembling the 
 trinity of modern times, to which he gave the name of 
 the economy, as well as of the trinity, or perhaps en- 
 deavoured to explain his trinity by some supposed eco- 
 nomy in the divine nature ; but which he could not 
 persuade them to believe, did not clash with the mo- 
 narchy of the Father ? Is it possible we can think that 
 we testify our love or honour for the Son, by thus dis- 
 regarding his precepts, and doing that, which he never 
 required, because a system formed by frail, and fallible, 
 though perhaps well-meaning men, long after his death,
 
 106 
 
 and the deaths of every one of his apostles, has without 
 any authority been made to injoin it upon us ? What 
 does our Lord himself say, " If ye love me, keep my 
 commandments." John xiv. 15. He commands us, 
 when we pray, to address ourselves to the Father, and 
 always gave us the example of it in his own person. 
 We, on our parts, have thought fit, without any com- 
 mandment whatever, to offer up our prayers tothe Son, 
 and to the Holy Ghost; neglecting the commandments 
 of God, which were delivered to us by the Son himself, 
 and making them of none effect by our traditions, and 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, thus 
 rejecting, as our Saviour says, the commandments of 
 God, that we may keep our own tradition. Is this 
 the faith that was once delivered to the saints ? No ; 
 that was plain and simple, requiring men only to 
 believe, that Jesus was the Christ. Are they the doc- 
 trines inculcated in the Scriptures ? In vain do we 
 look for them there. But if any one, after having 
 unsuccessfully searched for them in those sacred books, 
 is desirous of knowing where they are to be met with, 
 let him consult some of the writings of the fathers, 
 and some of the services, creeds and catechisms, com- 
 posed by philosophizing divines, where he will very 
 soon discover them. But if he engages in the arduous 
 task of attempting to trace them up to the only au- 
 thentic sources, the writings of the evangelists, and 
 apostles, and to establish them upon their authority, he 
 will, or I am very much mistaken, find that he has 
 laboured in vain, and spent his strength for nought. 
 I have now, I believe, offered my remarks upon
 
 107 
 
 every thing contained in the secdnd letter which your 
 friendship has induced you to address to me with the 
 kindest and purest motives ; and I have many reasons 
 to thank you for it, as it has engaged me fully to re- 
 consider the arguments for, and against, the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, and the opinions connected with it : 
 the result of which has been, the most perfect and sa- 
 tisfactory confirmation of the opinion I was compelled 
 to adopt upon a former investigation, antecedently 
 to which I had been a Trinitarian myself, that they 
 have no foundation in Scripture, but are mere human 
 inventions, by which the purity and simplicity of the 
 Gospel have been most dreadfully corrupted. I have 
 been obliged to express myself freely in writing upon 
 these subjects ; but, I trust you will do me the justice 
 to believe, without a particle of asperity, or ill will, 
 towards any of the individuals who maintain them. 
 Great and excellent characters, men of the highest at- 
 tainments, and of the most exemplary piety, have held, 
 and still hold, those opinions, which appear to me, to 
 be gross errors, and manifest absurdities ; and most 
 uprightly, and conscientiously, believe them to be sa- 
 cred truths. But this does not alter their nature. 
 That must be determined, not by great names, nor 
 by high authorities, but by their conformity, or non- 
 conformity, to the Holy Scriptures, which every man, 
 calling in the best assistance he can obtain, must ex- 
 ercise his own judgment upon, and determine for 
 himself. If the opinions of fathers and councils, how- 
 ever numerous, or of individual writers, however emi- 
 nent and respectable, were to be implicitly relied upon,
 
 108 
 
 we ought never to have renounced the errors of popery. 
 It has been justly observed that there is no opinion 
 so ridiculous and absurd, that it has not at some time 
 or. other been maintained by some man of learning 
 and ability ; and the history of the councils that have 
 been held at various periods, displays to us such sad 
 instances of ignorance and bigotry, fraud and violence, 
 that it is impossible to feel the least degree of respect 
 for the decrees, which they have from time to time 
 thought fit to make. Constituted as they too frequent- 
 ly were, and conducting their deliberations, and making 
 their decrees, in the manner, and upon the principles, 
 which they too often did, they are entitled to no credit 
 for their determinations with any one who reads the 
 accounts we have of their proceedings, except as far 
 as they accord with his own opinion, formed by deli- 
 berately, and impartially, examining and judging for 
 himself. It frequently happened that the majority 
 were manifestly wrong, and the minority as decidedly 
 right ; and it was no uncommon thing for some of 
 these learned bodies to determine in direct opposition 
 to others.. Individual members, who had the courage 
 to raise their voices against the general ciy of bigotry 
 and faction, have been reviled and ill-treated, during 
 their sittings, in the grossest, and most outrageous 
 manner, for the honest opinions which they thought 
 it incumbent upon them to express. I should be glad 
 to be able to say, that there was no instance, even in 
 one of the earliest of these councils, of a member 
 having actually been killed by his reverend brethren 
 for venturing to dissent from the opinion of the ma-
 
 109 
 
 jority. Such was the freedom of debate in these as- 
 semblies, and such the chance of any question being 
 fairly, and calmly, discussed among them, 
 
 As to the articles of faith which they have decreed, 
 let one suffice. Can any thing be more absurd, and 
 monstrous, than the doctrine, that a man, by muttering 
 a few words over a piece of bread, can make his Cre- 
 ator : and that, after he has made him, it is his duty to 
 eat him ? Yet this doctrine, impious and shocking as 
 it is, has been established as an article of faith by the 
 decrees of councils, consisting of hundreds of dignified, 
 and learned divines. The language of eminent and 
 reverend individuals, who have adopted the doctrines 
 of these assemblies, has been, if possible, still more 
 shocking, and disgusting. Some of them have said, 
 " that they can make their Creator whenever they 
 please ; that he obeys the priest, let him be where he 
 will, at every hour, at his simple word; that they carry 
 him whither they please; that he goes into the mouth 
 of the wicked, as well as of the righteous ; that he 
 makes no resistance, that he does not hesitate one 
 moment." Another of them, a man of great rank 
 amongst them, Cardinal Zabar, says, " that the Pope 
 may do what he pleases, even things unlawful, and 
 that he is therein more than God," thus shewing him, 
 though without intending it, to be literally the man 
 of sin predicted by the Apostle, 2 Thess. ii. 4, " who 
 opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called 
 God, or that is worshipped." Is it possible after this, 
 
 to feel any reverence for the determinations of such 
 
 -j^ " ' ?*** 
 
 bodies, or any respect "lor the opinions of such indivi-
 
 no 
 
 duals, however learned, or exalted ? But this is what 
 mankind must descend to, if they once give up the 
 right of private judgment^ and, deferring to human 
 authority, suffer any of their fellow mortals to assume 
 the privilege of determining for them, in questions 
 between them and their God. Let us stand fast there- 
 fore in that liberty, with which Christ has made us 
 free; and acknowledging no Master but him, maintain, 
 as our ancestors did at the Reformation, that the Bi- 
 ble is the religion, and private judgment the right, of 
 Protestants. Upon that basis has Protestantism al- 
 ways been successfully defended, and upon that basis 
 only, can a successful defence be made for it. Nor let 
 us suppose, because the Reformers from popery did 
 much, that there is nothing left for those who follow 
 them to do. It was not to be expected, that they 
 should discover and relinquish all the errors, which had 
 been engrafted upon Christianity, and had identified 
 themselves with the religious sentiments of the Chri- 
 stian world, during the long course of fourteen cen- 
 turies. Much still remains to be accomplished. Thank 
 God, a great progress has been made in our own 
 times, and is still proceeding with increasing effect. 
 It must not be forgotten, however, that Christianity in 
 its most corrupt form, produces great benefits, and 
 makes men incomparably better, than any other -reli- 
 gion. Even the Church of Rome, debased and de- 
 graded as it is, by the monstrous corruptions that have 
 been introduced into it, and the idolatrous, and pagan, 
 rites, which it has adopted, has produced such men as 
 Erasmus, and Sir Thomas More, as the good Bishop
 
 Ill 
 
 of Marseilles, and the eminently meritorious, and 
 amiable, Fenelon. In our own country, where Chri- 
 stianity is established upon purer principles, where 
 it is found more nearly resembling, what it was, when 
 it came out of the hands of our Saviour and his apo- 
 stles ; and in our own age^ in which the rights and du- 
 ties of Christians are better understood, and more can- 
 didly, and liberally, acknowledged, than at any former 
 period; every sect among us, can furnish numerous 
 instances of the most pious, learned, benevolent, and 
 useful characters, spreading the genuine lustre of 
 Christianity around them, and adorning the doctrines 
 of our common Master by their lives and conduct. 
 What multitudes of different denominations and per- 
 suasions, have united in the true spirit of Christian 
 candour and benevolence, to spread the name, and 
 circulate the gospel, of their great and illustrious 
 head ; all anxious still further to enlighten, and im- 
 prove the Christian world, and to evangelize the hea- 
 then nations, which have never yet received his truth ! 
 And who that feels the real spirit of Christianity kin- 
 dling in his bosom, can help wishing success to them 
 all ? as the success of each would be productive of good, 
 though in different measures and degrees. This is 
 an union, which could never have been accomplished 
 by bigotry and persecution ; an union which it is to 
 be hoped will be daily, and yearly, drawing the differ- 
 ent sects and parties amongst Christians nearer and 
 nearer to each other, and rendering them all more 
 happy and useful. Nevertheless, whilst there are men, 
 there will be differences of opinion, as well upon reli-
 
 112 
 
 gious, as upon all other subjects ; for though we have 
 reason to expect, that in due time all great and danger- 
 ous errors will disappear, and that a further approxi- 
 mation of sentiment will be continually going on ; yet, 
 like those geometrical lines, which are constantly ap- 
 proaching each other, but can never meet, perfect 
 uniformity of opinion, in all respects, may not, and 
 perhaps never was designed to take place ; and where 
 men are well informed of, and duly respect, the rights 
 of each other, much good may result from some dif- 
 ferences of opinion, as affording room for the exercise 
 of mutual benevolence, candour, and charity, as call- 
 ing forth the energies of the human intellect, making 
 the members of every different sect more circumspect 
 in their conduct, that they may not disgrace, but do 
 honour to, themselves and their community; and keep- 
 ing up a more constant, and active attention to reli- 
 gion itself, which binds them all in its comprehensive 
 embrace, and will finally ensure the safety and happi- 
 ness of all who obey its precepts, and walk worthy of 
 the vocation with which they are called. 
 
 I am, rny dear Sir, 
 
 Yours most truly and faithfully. 
 
 Printed by R. and A. Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London.
 
 113 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 '- < "' '." .''. : iSHJm rt&imti ?,.",? 
 
 MY DEAR SIR, 
 
 1 HOUGH we are not engaged in mortal warfare, and 
 neither of us, I am persuaded, is anxious for victory, 
 but for the sake of Truth, I perceive from your third 
 letter that the contest is not yet closed ; that, as you 
 have failed in persuading me to pass over to your side 
 of the question, so I have not yet the pleasure of see- 
 ing you on mine ; but must once more collect my 
 forces, and prepare to take the field for another cam- 
 paign. 
 
 It appears to me, that there must be some mistake 
 in the remark you make, that 1 close with a summary 
 of evidence in favour of my sentiments, as the close of 
 my last letter contains no summary of evidence at all. 
 But to whatever part of the evidence I have produced 
 you may happen to allude, you say, " that it is all ir- 
 relative, as directed against your sentiments ; for that 
 you most fully agree to the humanity of the Redeemer, 
 his subjection to the Father and devotion to his glory, 
 and to the honours and rewards which he received in 
 consequence." It is quite clear, however, though you 
 
 i
 
 114 
 
 appear to be unaware of it, that you do not agree to 
 the humanity of the Redeemer, but only to the hu- 
 manity of part of him, and in like manner only to 
 the subjection of part of him to the Father, and to the 
 honours and rewards received by part of him ; for you 
 immediately add, that all this perfectly accords with 
 the hypothesis of another nature, infinite, eternal, 
 SUPREME. 
 
 This, it must be allowed, is a short way of getting 
 rid of long arguments ; but it is begging the question 
 throughout, taking for granted the very thing in con- 
 troversy, and forgetting entirely what I had offered in 
 my last Letter, to shew that our blessed Lord had only 
 one nature. But, my dear Sir, let me entreat you can- 
 didly to inform me, whether the Scriptures speak any 
 such language as this. Where do they say, that it 
 was only his human nature that was subject to the 
 Father ; that it was only his human nature that was 
 devoted to his Father's glory ; that it was only his hu- 
 man nature that was rewarded and honoured in Jon- 
 sequence of it ? Where does our blessed Lord, or 
 where do any of his Apostles, ever speak of his having 
 two natures ? This is a question which I have asked 
 before, but which has not received any answer, and I 
 firmly believe never will. 
 
 It lies upon you, my good friend, who, notwithstand- 
 ing the absolute silence of our Lord himself, and all 
 his Apostles, upon this subject, have taken upon you, 
 contrary to all appearance and to all probability, to
 
 115 
 
 assert that he has two natures, to prove the fact. But 
 this you have not done : neither have you shewn that 
 his divine nature, supposing that he had any such, did 
 any thing to accomplish or advance the purposes of 
 his mission. On the contrary, I think I have proved, 
 that if such a nature existed in him, it was absolutely 
 useless, never having performed any miracle, made any 
 revelation, or endured any suffering. It seems to me, 
 that if we call in a God, it should be for a purpose 
 worthy of a God. There should be a " dignus vindice 
 nodus" He should not be introduced merely to do 
 nothing. 
 
 As a Trinitarian, you cannot, in my humble opinion, 
 maintain with any degree of consistency, that the hu- 
 manity of the Redeemer, his subjection to the Father, 
 his devotion to his glory, and the honours and rewards 
 he received in consequence, perfectly accord with 
 another nature, infinite, eternal, and supreme: for it is 
 undeniable, though you appear to have lost sight of it 
 upon this occasion, that, according to the Trinitarian 
 hypothesis, the two natures were inseparably united, 
 and constituted but one person, which person was the 
 Redeemer of whom we are speaking. The subjection 
 therefore of the whole, that is of the Son, does not at 
 all accord with the supremacy of part. Neither was 
 his subjection confined to the period of his humilia- 
 tion, whilst he was an inhabitant of this lower world; 
 but extends to his present, and is to extend to his 
 f mire, exalted and glorified state j when he is, notwith- 
 
 i 2
 
 116 
 
 standing, to be subject to the Father, without the 
 slightest intimation being given, that this is predicted 
 of only a part of him. 
 
 Gilbert Wakefield, you tell me, owned, that the 
 double view of Christ, as both God and man, best ac- 
 cords with the letter of Scripture, though he adds, Here 
 also, " the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." To 
 which I reply, that if it "was his opinion, it is not mine; 
 except in one sense; namely, that in which Moses was 
 both God and man (Exodus vii. 1): in which the 
 princes, rulers, and magistrates mentioned in Exodus 
 xxi. 5, 6; Exodus xxii. 8, 9, 28 ; in the Book of Num- 
 bers, and in the Psalms : in which the Prophets and 
 holy men of old mentioned in the Old Testament, and 
 referred to by our Lord in the New, (John x. 34,) were 
 both Gods and men : and in which sense, and in which 
 only, he (our illustrious Head) intimated, that he should 
 have been justified in making himself God. Taking 
 it in this sense, the difficulties are solved at once, and 
 the letter and the spirit completely harmonize. This 
 exposition is the more valuable, because it is one of our 
 Lord's own, and therefore comes down to us stamped 
 with the highest authority. But it has nothing what- 
 ever to do with two natures, which is a doctrine not 
 supported by the letter, or the spirit, of a single text. 
 
 It does seem to me, that, before you had pronounced 
 the evidence I offered against your sentiments to be 
 all irrelative, because you fully agreed to the humanity 
 and subjection of the Redeemer, which you supposed
 
 117 
 
 fully to accord with the hypothesis of another nature, 
 infinite, eternal, and supreme, it would have been well 
 if you had considered, that part of the evidence adduced 
 by me proved, that if there had been another nature 
 in our Lord, it could not have been either infinite or 
 supreme ; for that, according to his own declarations, 
 it could not have been possessed of infinite knowledge, 
 he himself having excluded his divine nature, if he had 
 any such, from all knowledge of the day of judgement: 
 nor of infinite power, not having power to appoint to 
 places on his right hand and on his left, in the future 
 state ; and not being to be invested with it even then, 
 the Father having reserved this entirely to himself, 
 (Matthew xx. 23,) as well as the time of the restoration 
 of the kingdom to Israel, which our Lord informed 
 his disciples, even after his resurrection and exaltation, 
 that the Father had put in his own power. (Acts i. 7.) 
 Can a being then, which is neither omniscient nor 
 omnipotent, be infinite, and supreme ? It is a contra- 
 diction in terms : and consequently the second nature 
 you contend for, is, and must be, a nonentity, a mere 
 creature of the imagination. My evidence therefore, 
 to which you appear to allude, considered as directed 
 against this view of the person of the Redeemer, is all 
 relevant, consisting as it does of declarations made by 
 our blessed Lord concerning himself absolutely, and 
 entirely, without the most remote allusion to any par- 
 ticular part, or nature, belonging to him; of which not 
 a single instance can be produced from any of his dia-
 
 118 
 
 courses. And these are not only relevant in this point 
 of view, but some of them are absolutely irreeoncile- 
 able with all ideas of the infinity or supremacy of any 
 part of, or nature belonging to, him; shewing plainly 
 from his own words, that neither his divine nature, sup- 
 posing him to have had any such, nor both his natures 
 united, were either omniscient or omnipotent, and 
 still less supreme. When so strange an hypothesis, 
 as that of two such natures co-existing in the person 
 of our Lord, is proposed, every rational inquirer will 
 expect to be informed upon what foundations it rests, 
 and what proofs of it are to be found in the Scrip- 
 tures, before he 'will accede to a doctrine so extraordi- 
 nary and improbable. No such proof, however, has 
 been produced. 
 
 Having desired to call my attention to a summary 
 of the evidence in favour of your sentiments, you be- 
 gin by stating, " that the Christian religion was not 
 a new thought introduced into the world two thousand 
 years ago; but was promised in Paradise immediately 
 on the fall ; that a system of religion was given to in- 
 troduce it into full possession of the world; that it was 
 revealed to a people thus prepared for it, and promul- 
 gated to the world by men thus imbued with previous 
 sentiments ; that they knew that the promised Saviour 
 was first announced to the world, as the seed of the 
 wonian, which, you remark, was a peculiar phrase, to 
 say the least; that he was then more clearly announced, 
 as one that was to be born of a virgin ; for this,' you
 
 119 
 
 say, is the meaning of the Hebrew as well as the En- 
 glish." Now, my dear Sir, whatever peculiarity you 
 may imagine to be in the phrase f seed of the woman? 
 is every one to be deemed the Supreme God, respect- 
 ing whom a peculiar phrase is used, though it means 
 no such thing ? If such a rule of construction were 
 to be adopted, I am afraid we should be like the 
 Heathen of whom the Apostle Paul speaks, who had 
 " Gods many, and Lords many." But what was it after 
 all, that was promised in Paradise ? Nothing more 
 than that the seed of the woman should bruise the ser- 
 pent's head : a phrase of no great peculiarity ; for, as 
 the woman only was deceived by the serpent, it was 
 said very naturally, and certainly with more point and 
 with greater beauty and propriety, that the seed of the 
 woman should bruise the head of the serpent, rather 
 than the seed of the man, who had not been deceived 
 by him, though the seed was in fact to be the seed of 
 both. Nor must it escape our recollection, that the 
 seed is throughout represented to be the seed of the 
 same woman who was deceived by the serpent, that is 
 Eve. It was her seed that was to bruise the head of 
 the serpent ; and there is no allusion to any other 
 woman, much less to the supposed virgin mother of 
 Christ, in any part of the history of this transaction. 
 But whosesoever seed was alluded to, whether the 
 seed of the woman, or of the man, or of both, or even 
 of the mother of Christ, no proof whatever can be
 
 120 
 
 deduced from it, that such seed was to have two na- 
 tures, or was to be any thing more than a man. 
 
 'The seed of a woman' naturally means one born 
 of, or descended from, a woman : but if it meant also 
 one born of a human mother, without the instrumen- 
 tality of a human father, it does not at all follow that 
 he would be God, though the want of a human 
 father were to be supplied by the direct and miracu- 
 lous exercise of the power of the Most High; for a mi- 
 raculous conception, or production, of any kind, does 
 not prove the Divinity of the being thus conceived 
 or produced. Adam we know was miraculously pro- 
 duced, without human father or human mother, by 
 the immediate operation of creating power ; yet we 
 have reason enough to know that he was no Divinity; 
 and it was never pretended that he had more than 
 one nature, and that not a divine nature, not the na- 
 ture of Him who was his only parent, but a mere hu- 
 man nature only. 
 
 The origin of this strange opinion seems likely to 
 have been, that some of the early converts from pagan- 
 ism, having brought into their recently adopted faith 
 many of the preconceived notions which they held 
 whilst in a pagan state, and having deified their new 
 master, as some of the sons of their former Gods had 
 been deified, in order, as they conceived, to do him, 
 as well as themselves, more honour, the two natures 
 was an after thought, a second invention, devised tQ
 
 121 
 
 support the first, which, without some such contrivance, 
 could not have heen maintained in the face of the nu- 
 merous texts of Scripture which describe him, even in 
 his exalted state, as still a man. 
 
 Amongst the pagan nations, particularly the Greeks 
 and Romans, the apotheosis of their heroes and great 
 men, some of whom they first pretended to be sons of 
 their gods, to take away the reproach of their illegiti- 
 macy, and after their deaths deified, and paid divine 
 honours to them as such, was quite familiar to their 
 minds : and when, upon their embracing Christianity, 
 they found their great and newly adopted master de- 
 scribed both as the Son of God, and as a God in the 
 inferior Jewish sense of the word, they, who had been 
 frequently in the habit of hearing of, and believing in, 
 the deification of Hercules and Bacchus, and other 
 sons of Jupiter, were in great measure prepared for, 
 and likely to receive without difficulty, an erroneous 
 opinion, that, as the reward of his virtues and suffer- 
 ings, he had, after his death, been exalted, and made 
 a God in a similar sense; particularly as such exalta- 
 tion and deification would be calculated in their opi- 
 nion to reflect great credit upon him and his religion, 
 and serve to efface the scandal of the cross, which, 
 being a punishment inflicted upon slaves, men of the 
 lowest class, was a greater objection to Christianity 
 in those times, than we can at present easily conceive. 
 The Jewish Christians, on the other hand, being either 
 entire strangers to these practices in the Heathen
 
 122 
 
 world, of deifying men, and adding them to the num- 
 ber of their false gods; or holding them in utter ab- 
 horrence: and knowing, that calling him 'the ivord? 
 was only personifying the word of God which came 
 to him, and denoting him to be a prophet who com- 
 municated the word of the Most High to the world; and 
 that calling him 'the word/ 'a God,' was only giving 
 him the same name of dignity or authority which 
 had been bestowed upon other rulers and prophets 
 before him ; were not likely to be seduced into any such 
 opinions or practices, but to adhere more closely to 
 the faith delivered to them by our Lord himself and 
 his apostles, and to honour him as " a man approved 
 of God, by miracles, signs, and wonders, which God 
 did by him." 
 
 Now this appears to me to have been precisely what 
 happened the proper Deity of our blessed Lord having 
 been introduced by Gentile Christians, and having 
 gradually gained ground among them, till it became 
 at length predominant ; whilst among the Christians 
 of the Jewish nation it made no progress at all, but 
 was constantly rejected by them. 
 
 Nor would it have made any difference in these 
 respects, had our Lord, as you have supposed, been 
 announced as one that was to be born of a virgin, and 
 had been so born accordingly; for that would still have 
 been nothing more than a miraculous conception, and 
 would not have proved the person so conceived to 
 have been God, or to have had two natures, or to have
 
 been in any respect more than a man. Not that I 
 admit the fact of his having been born of a virgin, or 
 of its having ever been predicted that he should ; having 
 proved, I think, very satisfactorily, that the passage 
 Isaiah vii. 14, which you allude to, has no reference to 
 our Lord at all. Nor do I admit that the child pre- 
 dicted by Isaiah, whoever he may have been, was born 
 of a virgin, the Hebrew, I am informed, bearing the 
 translation of young woman, as well as that of virgin, 
 and I stated it in the alternative, virgin or young wo- 
 man: but supposing it to have meant 'virgin,' the then 
 virgin might, as I observed, have afterwards married, 
 and have had a son. 
 
 Upon what authority you state that ' virgin' is the 
 meaning, by which you appear, as the assertion is 
 made in opposition to my rendering of ' virgin oryoung 
 woman,' to intend exclusive meaning of the Hebrew, 
 you have not informed me; nor can I form a conjec- 
 ture, unless it be some of the Greek and Latin fathers, 
 one of the earliest of whom, however, Irenseus, informs 
 us, that Theodotion of Ephesus, and Aquila of Pontus, 
 both Jewish proselytes, translate it, " a young woman 
 shall bear a child." According to Dr. Priestley, the 
 Jews, andSymmachus the Ebionite, (whose translation 
 of the Old Testament into Greek is quoted with the 
 highest respect by Origen, Eusebius, and all the an- 
 cients,) and who, he observes, were certainly better 
 judges than either the Greek or Latin fathers, say that it 
 often signifies a young woman only. We are inform-
 
 124 
 
 ed also in the Gospel of St. John, that our Lord had 
 a human father, as well as mother. Thus in John 
 i. 45, it is said: " Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith 
 to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the 
 law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the 
 son of Joseph" Again, in John vi. 42, we find the 
 Jews saying, in his presence and hearing, " Is not this 
 Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we 
 know ?" and our Lord immediately replying to them ; 
 without uttering one word in denial, or disapprobation 
 of the assertion, which would have been entirely false, 
 as well as that next preceding, if he had been born of 
 a virgin. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, however, and though you 
 have not invalidated the proofs I produced to shew 
 that this passage does not refer at all to our Lord, you 
 reassert it, exactly in the same manner as if it had 
 never been impugned. 
 
 It is truly extraordinary, if, as you state, " a system 
 of religion was previously given to introduce Christi- 
 anity into the full possession of the world, and the 
 Christian religion was revealed to a people thus pre- 
 pared for it, and promulgated to the world by men 
 thus imbued with previous sentiments, who knew that 
 our Lord had been first announced as the seed of the 
 woman, and was then more clearly announced, as one 
 that was to be born of a virgin," that not one of the 
 men thus imbued with those sentiments, and possess- 
 ed of this knowledge, and by whom the Christian re-
 
 ligion was so promulgated, his own apostles in parti- 
 cular, ever preached what, if it had been true, would 
 have been a most important doctrine; namely, that he 
 had been born in this unusual and supernatural man- 
 ner, which must have eminently distinguished him 
 from all other men, and have been calculated in their 
 opinion to reflect the highest honour upon him. 
 Many of their discourses to the people have come down 
 to us, in not one of which is any such thing to be 
 found. 
 
 Would Philip, one of his own apostles, if he had 
 been imbued with these previous sentiments, if he had 
 ever believed, or heard of, his having been so clearly 
 announced, as one that was to be born of a virgin, 
 have told Nathanael, in flat contradiction to all such 
 previous sentiments, that he (Philip) and some others 
 of the apostles had found him, of whom Moses in the 
 law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, 
 the son of Joseph ? Common sense forbids us to an- 
 swer in the affirmative ; it being quite clear from this 
 passage, that Philip, and the other apostles just 
 spoken of, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and that 
 he was the son of Joseph : consequently none of them 
 could have had the least idea, that the Scriptures had 
 announced him as one who was to be born of a virgin.. 
 
 Nor is this all: for it was not only unknown to these 
 apostles, but also to Nathanael ; for if the latter had 
 been acquainted with it, when our Lord was thus an- 
 nounced to him, as the son of Joseph, he would na-
 
 120' 
 
 turally have exclaimed, The Son of Joseph! how can 
 that be ? The Messiah is to be born of a virgin, and 
 consequently cannot be the Son of any man. So 
 that all these persons, whom you suppose to have 
 been, in common with the rest of their countrymen, 
 imbued with such opinions, appear decidedly to have 
 known nothing about the matter; but to have been 
 in a state of profound ignorance of the existence of 
 any such notions. The conclusion is obvious ; namely, 
 that the doctrine was at the time unknown, and that 
 the passage, Isaiah vii. 14, was not interpreted then, 
 as it is now, nor considered as referring to the pro- 
 mised Messiah, as it is at present. 
 
 Is it possible, that a people prepared in the manner 
 you suppose ; that men imbued with the sentiments, 
 and possessed of the knowledge you have imagined, 
 should not only have had no idea of these doctrines, 
 or of any other doctrine connected with the Trinita- 
 rian hypothesis ; but should even have been ignorant, 
 that our Lord's kingdom was to be a spiritual king- 
 dom, and have expected him to be a mere temporal 
 prince, destined to reign on earth for ever, and to es- 
 tablish an universal empire ? That this was the gene- 
 ral opinion of the Jews at large appears from all 
 history; and that it was the opinion of our Lord's own 
 apostles and disciples, up to the time of his cruci- 
 fixion, and even afterwards, is plainly taught in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 It would have been wonderful, if the Jewish nation
 
 127 
 
 had been prepared for, and imbued with, Trinitarian 
 sentiments, that the Apostle Peter in the first sermon 
 he preached to them after our Lord's resurrection, 
 should never have alluded in the most remote manner 
 to any Trinitarian opinion ; but should merely have 
 represented him as a man, and nothing more : and 
 still more so, that not a single Jew whom the apo- 
 stles converted, nor the Jewish church at Jerusalem 
 which they founded, should ever have been Trinita- 
 rians. This, though at first controverted by Bishop 
 Horsley, was undeniably proved by Dr. Priestley, and 
 established upon so firm a basis as the former was 
 totally unable to shake , by which the question seems 
 to have been entirely set at rest ; even the supposed 
 church of Jewish Trinitarian Christians at ^Elia, which 
 was imagined by the good bishop to have risen from 
 its ruing, having been subverted from its very founda- 
 tions. 
 
 I am persuaded, my dear Sir, that you would not 
 have stated so confidently, " that the Messiah was 
 foretold by Isaiah (ix. 6,) as the wonderful, counsellor, 
 mighty God, in such a way as excludes the notion of 
 a God," if you had looked beyond the common version, 
 which we are by no means entitled to consider as an 
 oracle not to be disputed : the authors of it, however 
 valuable their labours may have been upon the whole, 
 and however deserving they may have been of com- 
 mendation, considering the time when, and the cir- 
 cumstances under which, they made it, having shewn
 
 128 
 
 themselves in many instances to have been very falli- 
 ble; and I believe it is now generally admitted, that 
 they were mistaken in their translation of the prophecy 
 in question. 
 
 Even Bishop Lowth remarks, that there are many 
 and great difficulties in it ; and he corrects the com- 
 mon version in a most important point, rendering, 
 instead of 'the everlasting Father,' 'the Father of the 
 everlasting age' ; whilst other translations, and those 
 very ancient ones, render it the * Father of the future 
 age'. See the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. It is 
 said, likewise, that the words ' the Mighty God' might 
 have been more properly rendered 'a mighty God', or 
 * Judge', or 'Ruler', the words in the original not being 
 Hael Haggibbor, as in Jeremiah xxxii. 18, but El 
 Gibbor; and some of the manuscripts, particularly two 
 of the most ancient and valuable, namely the Vatican 
 and Alexandrine, omitting the word 'God' altogether. 
 The former, instead of it, reads 'the Messenger of the 
 great design'. It is questionable therefore, as Mr. 
 Yates justly remarks, whether the word El, or Al, 
 translated 'God', to which there is nothing correspond- 
 ing in any of the ancient Greek versions, be a genuine 
 part of the Hebrew text. Supposing it, however, to 
 be genuine, there seems to be greater reason for con- 
 sidering it as having been used in the inferior sense, 
 in which our Lord himself intimated that it might 
 have been applied to him, (John x. 34-36), and for 
 translating it 'a mighty Judge', ' Prophet', or 'Ruler',
 
 J29 
 
 than for adopting the translation given to it in the com- 
 mon version, which corresponds with none of our Lord's 
 declarations, nor with those of any of his apostles, 
 none of which designate him by the appellation of 'the 
 mighty God.' In this state of things, what becomes 
 of the text for Trinitarian purposes ; it being evident 
 that no doctrinal point can be established upon such 
 a basis, much less so stupendous and improbable an 
 one, as that a person who appeared as a man ; who 
 declared himself, and was declared by others, to be a 
 man ; who felt pain and pleasure, hunger and thirst, 
 as other men do ; and finally died, like another man, 
 was the mighty God who fills the heavens and the 
 earth ? Who would translate in this manner, even if 
 the word 'God' was indisputably part of the text, when 
 there was another translation, obvious, easy, natural, 
 agreeing with our Lord's own ideas of the use of the 
 word 'God' as applied to him, and unattended with 
 any of these difficulties ? 
 
 As little are you entitled, my good friend, to say 
 that " the Jews never employed the word a God, but 
 by way of reproach." Was not our Saviour a Jew ; 
 and did he not (John x. 34, 35) refer to the prophets 
 to whom the word of God came, as having been called 
 Gods in the law itself ? and will any one affirm that 
 the word was applied to them by way of reproach, 
 either by our Lord or by the great promulgator of 
 the Jewish law ? or that, when any one of them was 
 thus spoken of indefinitely, he was not spoken of, and 
 
 K
 
 130 
 
 considered, as a God, and not as God, or the God 
 absolutely ? 
 
 But I shall carry this a little further. In Exo- 
 dus xxi. 5, 6, you will find; "And if the servant shall 
 plainly say, Hove my master, my wife, and my children; 
 I will not go out free : then his master shall bring him 
 unto the Gods (so it is literally, though translated 
 Judges in the common version) ; he shall also bring 
 him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his mas- 
 ter shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he 
 shall serve him for ever." See also Exodus xxii. 8, 9 r 
 " If the thief be not found, then the master of the 
 house shall be brought unto the Gods, to see whether 
 lie have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For 
 all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, 
 for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, 
 which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both 
 parties shall come before the Gods, and whom the 
 Gods shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his 
 neighbour." In the same chapter (verse 28) you will 
 find this law : " Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor 
 curse the ruler of thy people." Can any one imagine 
 that the great legislator of the Hebrew nation blew 
 hot and cold upon this occasion with the same breath ; 
 and, by using the word 'God' as a term of reproach, 
 was the first to break the law, which he was pro- 
 nouncing by the command of the Most High, at the 
 very moment of its promulgation ? In the First Book 
 of Samuel, chap, ii. 25, is this declaration : " If any
 
 131 
 
 man sin against another, the God shall judge him: 
 but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat 
 for him?" In 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, it is in the original 
 " The governors of the sanctuary, and the governors 
 of the Gods, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the 
 sons of Ithamar." Is it to be supposed, that the his- 
 torian meant to reproach the chief priests here referred 
 to, who were honourably employed in the time of 
 David, a religious prince, in some of the higher de- 
 partments of the service of the Lord ? Finally, in 
 2 Esdras,vii.3, whichlhave before cited, are the words, 
 "There was sent unto me the angel which had been 
 with me before ; and he said unto me, Rise, Esdras, and 
 hear the word I am come to tell thee : and I said, Speak 
 on, my God." 
 
 It is perfectly clear that the term 'God', as applied 
 to these persons, was not, in any one of the instances 
 I have produced, used as a term of reproach ; and that 
 if, in any one of them, any ruler or magistrate men- 
 tioned, had been spoken of singly and indefinitely, 
 the literal rendering into English must have been a 
 God ; and, by the way, I must observe, that in my 
 opinion the same term as applied to Moses (Exo- 
 dus vii. 1), " See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh," 
 was not employed as a reproach, but the contrary; 
 Moses, to whom the term is here applied, and who 
 thus was to be a God unto Pharaoh, by reason of the 
 stupendous miracles which he was by the Most High 
 commissioned and empowered to perform, having 
 
 K2
 
 132 
 
 been preeminently distinguished by his appointment 
 to this high office : and though the miracles subse- 
 quently wrought by him astonished, and ultimately 
 overawed Pharaoh, at the same time confounding the 
 magicians, and making them acknowledge that they 
 were performed by the finger of God ; there was no 
 term of reproach, or reproachful allusion, as you have 
 supposed, made use of in this discourse, even against 
 Pharaoh's gods, as if Moses was to do more than they 
 would be able to resist ; for they are not once men- 
 tioned, or alluded to, in the whole discourse. Nay 
 more, when the magicians are in the succeeding chap- 
 ters introduced as endeavouring to counterfeit the 
 miracles of Moses, it is no where said that they pre- 
 tended to do it by any assistance of their Gods ; but 
 by their enchantments, (in the original, secret sleights 
 of hand, or jugglings,) and their Gods are never once 
 mentioned, or alluded to, upon the occasion. 
 
 You remind me " that the Messiah was promised 
 under the name of Jehovah, which the Jews, you say, 
 were taught to consider the incommunicable title of 
 the Supreme Being ; and that it is said by one pro- 
 phet, * This righteous branch which shall be raised up, 
 shall be called Jehovah our righteousness ;' and that 
 another had declared that * in Jehovah should the seed 
 of Israel be justified, and glory, and say, In Jehovah 
 have I righteousness/ &c. ; and that passages which are 
 spoken of Jehovah in the Old Testament, are with- 
 out scruple applied to Christ by the apostles in the
 
 133 
 
 New Testament." To which I reply, that though the 
 Jews had, from some source or other, imbibed very 
 superstitious notions respecting the name Jehovar, 
 which made them decline mentioning it when they 
 could avoid it, substituting the word 'Lord' in its place; 
 they certainly did not learn this from their Scriptures, 
 nor that the name itself was incommunicable; since 
 they must have seen, if they had taken the trouble to 
 consult them, that it was continually used by their 
 ancestors in the times of the prophets, without any 
 scruples of this kind ; and was actually communicated 
 in numerous instances to men, places, and thingo, 
 meaning nothing more than that they were in a par- 
 ticular manner favoured by, or consecrated to, that 
 Great Being whose name was thus, as a mark of di- 
 stinction, communicated to them, or that they repre- 
 sented or resembled him ; or in the case of places, 
 that he had performed, or intended to perform, some 
 great display of his power or goodness there. Thus, 
 as I have remarked in my former letter (p. 32), the 
 great prophet who slew the priests of Baal was called 
 Elijah, that is 'my God Jehovah. ? So one of the sons 
 of Jeroham was called Eliah, meaning also ' God,' or 
 'my God Jehovah.' 1 Chron. viii. 27. In like man- 
 ner the name Hoshaiah, that is ' Saviour' or ' Salvation 
 Jehovah,' was given to the father of Jezaniah. Jer. xlii. 
 1 . The name of Jehoshua, that is ' Jehovah the Sa- 
 viour,' to Oshea the son of Nun. Numbers xvi. 13. 
 I am aware that you, in common with many other
 
 134 
 
 Trinitarians, believe, though without any proof, this 
 name to have been given to him, because you consi- 
 der him to have been a type of Christ. But this does 
 not assist you at all in the present instance ; inasmuch 
 as the name still appears, upon this supposition, not 
 only to have been incommunicable, but to have been 
 actually communicated to a type ; and if its being 
 communicated to the type does not prove him to have 
 been more than a man, neither does its communica- 
 tion to the antitype prove, per se, one jot more. The 
 salvation of Jehovah, as it respected the Israelites, by 
 delivering them out of the hands of their enemies, and 
 establishing them in the land of Canaan, was wrought 
 by the instrumentality of Oshea the son of Nun, to 
 whom therefore the name of Jehoshua was on that 
 account given. Another great salvation of the same 
 Jehovah, and a more extensive one, as embracing the 
 whole human race, was wrought by him, through the 
 instrumentality of Christ, who is notwithstanding re- 
 presented by the apostle Peter, even after his exaltation, 
 to be a man approved of God by miracles, signs and 
 wonders, which God did by him ; and consequently if 
 the same name be considered as having been given to 
 him, it will not carry the matter in the smallest de- 
 gree further ; but we shall still have to look for other 
 proof of his being, contrary to every rule of construcr 
 tion, and to all the analogies furnished by a similar 
 application of the name in other instances, actually 
 that Jehovah himself, by whose name he was palled.
 
 135 
 
 The name Isaiah, which means also 'Salvation Je- 
 hovah,' is likewise given to the son of Amos. Isaiah i. 
 1 . The name Jehoshabeath, that is * The fulness of 
 Jehovah,' is given to a princess, the daughter of Jeho- 
 ram. 2 Chron. xxii. 11. The name Kolajah, that is 
 'The voice of Jehovah,' to the father of Pedaj ah. Nehem. 
 xi. 7. The name of Raamiah, that is ' The thunder of 
 Jehovah,' to one of the companions of Zerubbabel. 
 Nehem. vii. 7. And the name Ahijah, that is * Brother 
 of Jehovah,' to one of the sons of Jerahmeel. 1 Chron. 
 ii. 25. This last name is a most curious one, and 
 well deserving the attention of all such as fancy that 
 ear Lord, or any other person, must be what he is 
 called. 
 
 We find, also, that the sacred name of Jehovah is 
 thus communicated, by the great Jehovah himself, to 
 the city of Jerusalem : "In those days shall Judah be 
 saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely : and this is 
 the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our 
 righteousness (or prosperity)." Jer. xxxiii. 16. And 
 by Moses to an altar or banner in the following words, 
 " And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it 
 Jehovah Nissi, that is Jehovah my banner." Exodus 
 xvii. 15. 
 
 Notwithstanding, therefore, it was imagined by 
 superstitious rabbies, that there was something so 
 sacred in the name of Jehovah, that it was wholly 
 incommunicable, and this fancy of theirs has been 
 received without examination by their successors, to-
 
 136 
 
 gether with a mass of other senseless and ridiculous 
 traditions; when brought to the test of Scripture, it 
 appears to be entirely without foundation. All the 
 evidence to be collected from that venerable and 
 only unquestionable authority, proves the reverse. 
 Great additions might be made to the catalogue I 
 have furnished, if there was occasion for it, nothing 
 being more common than for persons, places, and 
 things, to be called * Jehovah' and * God' in the holy 
 Scriptures, because they represented, resembled, or 
 were highly favoured by him, without any intention 
 to denote that they were the identical Jehovah, or 
 God, whose name was thus given to them. I will 
 not say, my dear Sir, "Art thou a master in Israel, and 
 knowest not these things?" because I am quite sure 
 that your intimate acquaintance with the sacred writ- 
 ings must have rendered all these texts perfectly fa- 
 miliar to you; because I am certain that we cannot 
 place our feet upon Old Testament ground, without 
 meeting with such at almost every step we take ; not 
 requiring to be dug up with labour and difficulty from 
 below, but lying quite upon the surface, obvious to 
 every passenger. It appears almost impossible to 
 avoid perceiving that this was the common phraseo- 
 logy of the Old Testament writers, and was never de- 
 signed by them to identify any of the persons, places, 
 or things, to whom the name of Jehovah, or God, was 
 thus given, with that great Being himself, by whose 
 name they were so called. But Trinitarians have for
 
 137 
 
 many years been so accustomed, whenever they have 
 supposed our Saviour to have been called by such 
 names, to regard it as decisive evidence of his actually 
 being Jehovah, the most high God himself, without 
 taking into their consideration that the very same 
 names, being applied to other persons, and even to 
 places and things inanimate, can furnish no more 
 proof of the one being Jehovah, than the others, that 
 it is easy to conceive how difficult it must be for them 
 to allow the argument its due weight, and to give up 
 preconceived opinions which have been so long cherish- 
 ed with more than paternal fondness, however great 
 a cloud of witnesses there may be against them. 
 
 It does not follow, because " one Prophet says (I 
 suppose you mean Jeremiah xxiii. 6, 7} that 'Jehovah 
 will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and that 
 this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord 
 our righteousness ;' and another has declared (I suppose 
 you mean to quote Isaiah xlv. 24, 25,) that ' in Jehovah 
 shall the seed of Israel be justified, and glory; and say, In 
 Jehovah have we righteousness/ " -that our Saviour is 
 Jehovah, supposing the first prophecy to apply to him : 
 for, since the calling him Jehovah, as has been already 
 shewn, proves no such thing, the declaration that the 
 seed of Israel shall have righteousness in Jehovah, sup- 
 plies no proof of it, even supposing that the branch is 
 alluded to in the latter prophecy; which by no means 
 appears. Had it even been said in the one place, that 
 the seed of Israel should have righteousness in Jehovah,
 
 and in the other that they should have righteousness 
 in Christ, it would not follow that Christ was Jehovah, 
 the same things being frequently affirmed of two dif- 
 ferent persons, sometimes in the same sense, and some- 
 times in different senses. Thus, it does not follow, 
 because the congregation of Israel (1 Chron. xxix. 20) 
 "bowed down their heads and worshipped Jehovah and 
 king David," that David was Jehovah ; nor, because 
 the people of Israel (Exodus xiv. 31) "believed Jehovah, 
 and also believed his servant Moses," that Moses was 
 Jehovah ; any more than it does, because David reign- 
 ed over Israel, and Solomon reigned over Israel, that 
 therefore Solomon was David : nor is there one jot 
 more reason for concluding, because John the Baptist 
 is said to have gone before Jehovah, and also to have 
 gone before Christ, that therefore Christ is Jehovah ; 
 though Mr. Wardlaw gravely offers it as a proof that 
 he is; in answer to which, Mr. Yates, in his Vindication 
 of Unitarianism, p. 194, furnishes us with the follow- 
 ing very apposite illustrations. It appears by Exodus 
 xx: 2 ; Deut. v. 6, that he who brought the Israel- 
 ites out of Egypt was Jehovah; and by Exodus xxxii. 
 7; xxxiii. 1, that he who brought the Israelites out 
 of Egypt was Moses, therefore Moses was Jehovah. 
 It appears also by 1 Samuel ii. 12, that the same 
 persons are called the sons of Eli, and the sons of 
 Belial ; therefore Eli was Belial. 
 
 Would not this be deemed most wretched reason- 
 ing, if employed for any other purpose than to prove the
 
 139 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity ? What should we say to an 
 astronomer who should seriously argue in like man- 
 ner ; The moon revolves round the sun, but the moon 
 revolves round the earth, therefore the earth is the 
 sun. The sun turns upon its own axis, the earth 
 turns upon its own axis, therefore also the earth is 
 the sun. Jupiter revolves round the sun, and the 
 earth revolves round the sun, therefore the earth is 
 Jupiter. Should we not open our eyes a little wider 
 than usual, and contemplate with extreme admiration 
 the learned personage, who should thus enlighten our 
 minds, by reasoning so profound and irrefragable? 
 Yet by similar arguments is it attempted to be proved 
 every day, by men most intelligent and judicious in 
 other respects, that Christ is Jehovah ; and, what is 
 more, there may perhaps be found a single person 
 amongst them, even in this age and country, who 
 will brand us poor ignorant Unitarians, with the epi- 
 thet of " God-denying heretics," because our under- 
 standings are so dull, or our wills so perverse, that 
 we cannot, or will not, subscribe to doctrines so clear 
 and demonstrable. 
 
 Had the seed of Israel been expressly declared in 
 one place to have righteousness in Jehovah, and in 
 another place to have righteousness \\\Christ, it would 
 have been very important in both places to have de- 
 termined the sense of tht word in; and it is difficult 
 to conceive of it as meaning otherwise than, in his 
 sight ? or estimation, or by, or through, his means, or
 
 instrumentality; in either of which senses these ex- 
 pressions might very well be construed, without hav- 
 ing recourse at all to the violent and forced construc- 
 tion, that Jehovah and Christ are the same, or that 
 Christ is Jehovah. The seed of Israel might have 
 righteousness in the sight of Jehovah, or by or through 
 his means, and also in the. sight of Christ his chosen 
 messenger and prophet, who came to declare his will, 
 or by and through his means, in subserviency to, and 
 by the appointment of, Jehovah; and yet Jehovah, 
 and his prophet Christ, be as different persons, as 
 Jehovah and his prophet Samuel, or Elijah. 
 
 But I must bring to your recollection, that the very 
 same prophet, repeating the same prophecy, and in 
 the same words, in other respects ; instead of saying, 
 that the branch who should be raised unto David, 
 whdse coming he again predicts (chap, xxxiii. 15,) 
 should be called Jehovah our righteousness, omits 
 that, and says in the following verse, " In those days 
 shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safe- 
 ly; and this is the name wherewith SHE (that is JE- 
 RUSALEM) shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness." 
 Now if we are obliged to admit, as we must, that Je- 
 rusalem cannot be Jehovah, and to consider the pro- 
 phecy as meaning nothing more than that Jerusalem 
 should be a righteous city, or a city full of righteous 
 inhabitants, and dedicated to Jehovah ; or that the 
 name should be given to it, because Jehovah would 
 display his righteousness there, why are we to con-
 
 141 
 
 skier the righteous branch to be raised up unto David, 
 and who is to be called by the same name, as men- 
 tioned before by the same prophet, in any other light 
 than as a righteous prince dedicated to, and highly 
 favoured by Jehovah, and by whom he intended to 
 display his righteousness to Israel ? If the application 
 of the name to the branch or prince here spoken of, 
 be evidence that he is Jehovah, the application of it 
 to Jerusalem will, by parity of reasoning, be evidence 
 likewise, that Jerusalem is Jehovah. 
 
 Mr. Christie has judiciously remarked, in his Dis- 
 courses on the Divine Unity, p. 133 : "There are 
 some who think this place ought to be translated thus : 
 This is the name that the Lord (Jehovah) shall call 
 him, Our righteousness." But admitting the propriety 
 of the common translation of this place, and also that 
 it is rightly applied to the Messiah, the conclusion 
 that our opponents form from it will be found to be 
 groundless and erroneous ; for we find in verse 5, that 
 it is the Lord, or Jehovah, that is to raise up un- 
 to David a righteous Branch, and a King that shall 
 reign and prosper, &c. This Branch, and this King, 
 therefore, must be a different being from the Jehovah 
 that is to raise him up ; and he must also be inferior 
 to, and dependent upon him, because he is to be in- 
 debted to him for his kingdom and prosperity. Pro- 
 phetic names are also given in Scripture to particular 
 persons, not as denoting what these persons are in 
 themselves, but as signs and evidences of what God
 
 will perform by them, or bring to pass in their time. 
 Thus Shearjashub signifies 'A remnant shall return;' 
 and Maher-shalal-hash-baz means ' In making speed 
 to the spoil he hastened the prey.' Now neither of 
 these names has any relation to the character of the 
 person who was so called, but is applicable to events 
 that happened at the time he lived. See Isaiah, chap. vii. 
 and viii. In like manner our Lord Jesus Christ being 
 called 'Jehovah our righteousness,' does not denote that 
 he was Jehovah, but only that Jehovah should make him 
 the means of righteousness to his people, or should 
 by him display his mercy and goodness to mankind, 
 agreeably to what St. Paul says, (2 Cor. v. 19,) "God 
 was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them." 
 
 Before I close my remarks upon this text, I shall 
 inquire in the first place, who it is that, according to 
 the prophet, is to raise up the righteous branch here 
 spoken of; to which question the prophet replies, Je- 
 hovah : and in the next place, who is the righteous 
 branch that is to be thus raised up ; to which the Tri- 
 nitarian, who considers the being called by the name 
 of Jehovah to be the same thing as being Jehovah 
 himself, answers Jehovah. The prediction therefore 
 amounts to this, that Jehovah shall raise up Jehovah ; 
 which requires, I presume, no comment. 
 
 You tell me that you could give me proofs that 
 passages spoken of Jehovah in the Old Testament, 
 are without scruple applied to Christ by the apostles
 
 143 
 
 in the New Testament, if you supposed that I needed 
 them. Why you should suppose that I, who am an 
 Unitarian, and who consequently must believe that 
 Christ is not Jehovah, do not stand in need of proofs 
 to convince me that passages spoken of Jehovah in 
 the Old Testament are thus without scruple applied 
 to Christ by the apostles in the New I cannot com- 
 prehend. I must therefore declare to you, that if 
 there be any such, I need them very much, and shall 
 be greatly obliged to you, if you will favour me with 
 a list of them, that I may judge how they bear upon 
 the question. I usually produce my authorities 
 for what I advance, by citing the book, chapter, and 
 verse, where they are to be found, which appears to me 
 to be calculated to introduce more certainty into the 
 discussion, and to avoid much trouble and confusion. 
 I rarely find any of your positions thus verified, and 
 am very frequently at a loss to conjecture what pas- 
 sages of Scripture you allude to, as well as obliged to 
 waste a great deal of time in searching for them. I 
 have no right, however, to prescribe the course you 
 shall pursue, and must therefore make my way good 
 in the best manner I can. 
 
 In the same general manner you state that every 
 divine name, title, attribute, work, honour, is ascribed 
 to Christ in the Scriptures. As you had made the 
 very same assertion before, I had an opportunity of 
 remarking upon it in my second letter pp. 99, 100, 
 and there shewed, that some of the most important,
 
 144 
 
 SUCh as OMNIPOTENCE, OMNISCIENCE, and SELF-EX- 
 ISTENCE, were not only never ascribed to him, but, 
 upon his own authority, did not exist in him ; not- 
 withstanding which, without invalidating my argu- 
 ments, you repeat the same assertion, with as little 
 ceremony as at first. 
 
 But as you still seem to rely Upon names and titles, 
 I shall avail myself of it to present you with an addi- 
 tional list of names given to a variety of persons in 
 the Old Teslament, some of them exactly resembling 
 names you suppose to have been given to Christ, and 
 to prove him to be God ; from which names so given 
 to these persons, it might be proved that each of them 
 also was God, and possessed of divine attributes ; 
 and that any one of them, was any one of the others, 
 precisely in the same manner as you propose to prove, 
 from the ascription of names to our blessed Lord, that 
 he was God, that is, the SUPREME BEING himself. 
 These could not be included in the catalogue I have 
 already submitted to your consideration, as that was 
 necessarily confined to names containing the word 
 Jehovah, or one of its abbreviations. 
 
 In 2 Sam. v. 16, we find the name Eliphalet, that 
 is * The God of deliverance,' given to one of the sons 
 of David. In 1 Chron. xii. 5, Eluzai, which is * God 
 my strength,' given to one of David's mighty men. 
 In Isaiah vii. 6, the father of the prince whom Rezin 
 king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, combined to 
 raise to the dignity of king of Judea in the place of
 
 145 
 
 Ahaz, whom they intended to dethrone, is stated to 
 have been called Tabeal, that is ' A good God.' In 
 1 Chron.xii. 20, one of the captains of thousands, who 
 revolted from Saul to David, appears to have been 
 called Elihu, which means 'He is my god.' In Job 
 xxxii, 2, the reprover of Job's three friends is also 
 called Elihu, 'He is my god,' and his father, Barachiel, 
 which is, if possible, still stronger, meaning 'The very 
 God.' In Isaiah xxii. 20, the son of Hilkiah appears 
 to have been called Eliakim, meaning ' God ariseth.' 
 In Ruth i. 2, the husband of Naomi is called Elime- 
 lech, that is ' My God the king.' In Nehem. xi. 7, the 
 father of Maaseiah is called Ithiel, which signifies 
 ' God with me? In Numb. xxvi. 8, one of the descend- 
 ants of Reuben is called Efiab, that is ' My God the 
 Fatlier? I shall close this list with two or three in- 
 stances of the name 'God 'having been given to "places 
 and things. Thus, in Gen. xxxii. 30, Jacob called 
 the name of a place Peniel, that is, ' The face of God.' 
 In Gen. xxxv. 7, it appears that Jacob built an altar 
 at Bethel, and called the name of the place El Bethel, 
 that is ' The God of Bethel.' In Gen. xxxiii. 20, it is 
 related that Jacob erected an altar, and called the 
 name of it El-elohe-Israel, that is ' God, the God of 
 Israel.' 
 
 This, and the previous enumerations which I have 
 furnished, of names given to different persons, calling 
 them Jehovah, and God, and seemingly ascribing to 
 them his divine attributes, many of them as high and
 
 146 
 
 lofty as any ever imagined to have been given to our 
 Saviour, will, I presume, be deemed ample to convince 
 us, that no such names, no not all of them together, 
 if all had been conferred upon him, would have been 
 sufficient to prove him to have been really Jehovah. 
 
 After stating that every divine name, title, attri- 
 bute, work, and honour, is ascribed to our Lord in the 
 Scriptures, you subjoin ; "All this Jesus knew;' 1 but do 
 not inform me where he has told us so. You have 
 thought proper to say it for him; but he has never 
 said it for himself. On the contrary, he has denied 
 the fact, as I have proved already, and shall therefore 
 make but a single addition here, to the titles and at- 
 tributes I have before shewn him neither to have 
 claimed, nor to have been possessed of. The title 
 HuvTOKgaTwp, usually translated * Almighty,' so often 
 given to the Father, and which includes one of his 
 highest attributes, is never in the whole compass of 
 Scripture given to our blessed Lord, but to the Father 
 only ; and the Christian fathers of the three, if not the 
 four, first centuries seem to have considered it asr his 
 peculiar and exclusive designation. 
 
 Your next observation is, " that though our Lord 
 is magnified as a model of humility, for voluntarily 
 concealing honours that were his own, rather than 
 snatching at what was not his due ; yet he speaks of 
 himself in such terms, as brought upon him alone, of 
 all the inspired messengers of Heaven, the charge of 
 blasphemy, for making himself equal with God." Now
 
 147 
 
 it really appears to me, my dear Sir, even if you were 
 quite certain of this being the nature of the charge, 
 that nothing can shew the weakness of the Trinita- 
 rian cause so much, nor so effectually expose the na- 
 kedness of the land, as to endeavour to prove what 
 our blessed Lord is, by the charges of his enemies 
 against him ; of enemies the most malignant and in- 
 veterate ; of enemies who were capable of making false 
 charges, and suborning false witnesses to effect their 
 purpose. What would be your own feelings, what 
 your sentiments of the justice or propriety of judging 
 of you, in the same manner as you propose to form 
 a judgement of the character and conduct of your 
 Saviour and your King ; that is, by the charges exhi- 
 bited against him by his bitterest enemies ? 
 
 Let us investigate, however, the nature of the accu- 
 sation preferred against him upon this occasion by his 
 Jewish opponents, together with his own observations 
 in reply to it ; and we shall soon see that this illustri- 
 ous Teacher stands as free from the charges made 
 against him by the Jews, as he does from other Tri- 
 nitarian sentiments imputed to him by his own zeal- 
 ous, though, as I conceive, very mistaken followers in 
 subsequent times. I agree with Mr. Belsham, (Calm 
 Inquiry, p. 161,) that Jesus never claimed equality 
 with God, and that the Jews did not mean to charge 
 him with it ; but only accused him of justifying his 
 own violation of the Sabbath, by the authority and 
 example of God ; in this respect making himself like 
 
 L2
 
 148 
 
 God. See Clarke (No. 580), and Grot, in loc. This 
 rendering of 'like God,' the original, HTOV TOO eu, will 
 admit of, as well as that of 'equal with God;' and as our 
 Lord so often represented himself to be inferior to 
 God, few perhaps will feel inclined to adopt the for- 
 mer without necessity. Supposing it, however, to have 
 been what the Jews intended to impute to him ; let us 
 see whether it was not a false charge ; let us inquire 
 whether he, who was the subject of it, assented to it in 
 the smallest degree ; whether his answer to it furnishes 
 a particle of evidence, that he considered himself equal 
 with the Father, which is what his enemies are sup- 
 posed to have imputed to him. Does not the very first 
 sentence, which this most excellent, and amiable, but 
 truly humble preacher of divine truth uttered in re- 
 ply, acknowledge the most marked inferiority; "Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of him- 
 self ; but what he seeth the Father do: for what things 
 soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise?" 
 Is this the language of one who considered himself 
 equal with the Father; or that of an humble imitator, 
 who could do none of the things spoken of, but such 
 as he saw the Father do, and even these not of him- 
 self ? He proceeds thus : " For the Father loveth the 
 Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth :" 
 plainly intimating, that he knew them not of himself, 
 till they were shewn to him by the Father ; and also 
 why the Father shewed them to him, namely, because 
 he loved him, which if he had not done, non constat,
 
 149 
 
 that he would have shewn them to him, or that he 
 would ever have known them without. It may be 
 asked, What is meant by "#// things, that himself (the 
 Father) doeth ?" To which I reply, first, that the words 
 "all things," as used in Scripture, are not to be taken 
 in an unlimited sense; of which we have a manifest 
 proof in 1 John ii. 20: "But ye have an unction 
 from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Se- 
 condly, that it is reasonable to limit them in this in- 
 stance to all things which the Father was doing for 
 the introduction of the new (or Christian) dispensation 
 by our Lord's agency: for they are by the immediate 
 context not only limited, but limited to things which 
 the Father was then doing; since our Lord instantly 
 adds, " and he will shew him greater works than these , 
 that ye may marvel." So that whatever these " all things" 
 were, they were less than certain other works, which 
 he intended to shew him afterwards, and which would 
 make his disciples marvel ; and therefore could not 
 have been all the works of the creation of the universe 
 with its innumerable worlds, than which nothing could 
 have been greater. What the "greater works" which 
 were to be shewn to him thereafter were, he after- 
 wards explains to be the resurrection, and subsequent 
 judgement of the dead, which he states in terms as 
 strongly expressive of inferiority and subjection, as 
 could possibly have been used ; acknowledging that 
 the future judgement of mankind was committed or 
 delivered to him by the Father ; thereby clearly de-
 
 150 
 
 monstrating, that it was not originally his own, and 
 that unless the Father had committed it to him, he 
 would not have possessed any such authority that 
 he was to be honoured as the Father was honoured, 
 because this authority was committed to him ; that is, 
 as his Father's representative, which shews, that until 
 it was committed to him he was not so honoured, nor 
 entitled so to be. 
 
 He proceeds in the same style to state, that the 
 Father had given to him to have life in himself, which 
 is an admission that it was the Father's gift, which 
 the Father, of course, might have withheld from him 
 if he had pleased, and without which he would not 
 have had it ; and also that until it was so given to him, 
 he had it not that the Father had given him autho- 
 rity to execute judgement also; shewing again, that 
 this authority was the Father's gift, and consequently 
 might have been withheld ; informing us, also, why it 
 was given to him, and not stating it to have been, be- 
 cause he was the divine Logos, the second person in 
 the supposed Trinity, possessed of infinite knowledge, 
 and power, to render him competent to the task ; but 
 merely because he was the Son of man ; and after 
 having declared, that "all who are in the graves shall 
 hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have 
 done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that 
 have done evil, unto the resurrection of condemna- 
 tion," adds, as if to impress upon us still more strongly 
 that he had no inherent power, or authority, of his
 
 151 
 
 own ; but that whatever he did was to be performed 
 by the power of the Father, through his instrumen- 
 tality or agency : "I can of mine own self do nothing, 
 as I hear^I judge, and my judgment is just, because I 
 seek not mine own will, but the will of my Father 
 who hath sent me." 
 
 Is it possible for any one to pay the least attention 
 to all this, and consider our blessed Lord as making 
 himself equal with God ? If the Jews designed to 
 impute it to him, the charge was a false one, and our 
 Lord's answer a complete refutation of it. But it is 
 much more probable, that the real charge was, that 
 he had made himself like God; for it appears, that he 
 had miraculously cured a diseased person on the Sab- 
 bath day, always a most heinous offence in their esti- 
 mation, and that they therefore sought to slay him ; 
 upon which he said to them, "' My Father worketh hi- 
 therto, and I work;" meaning, My Father worketh on 
 the Sabbath day, and I do the like : in which particu- 
 lar instance he represented himself to be like his 
 Father. Therefore it is said, that " the Jews sought 
 the more to kill him, because he had not only broken 
 the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, 
 making himself like God." He had, it appears, done 
 two things : first, had, according to their mistaken no- 
 tions, broken the sabbath by working (as they consi- 
 dered it) on the Sabbath day, in curing a man of a 
 disease under which he had long laboured; and, second- 
 ly, had called God his Father, by saying that his Fa-
 
 152 
 
 ther (meaning God) worked hitherto, (meaning on the 
 Sabbath day) as well as other days, and consequently 
 did the like, and that he worked; of course justifying 
 himself by the example of God his Father. This 
 they thought fit to consider as making himself like 
 God, as it certainly was in one sense ; and to treat as 
 a most high crime in one who was the son of a com- 
 mon carpenter, and whom they not only did not re- 
 cognise as the Messiah, but not even as a prophet at 
 all, regarding him merely as an impostor. Our bless- 
 ed Lord, however, instead of disavowing the making 
 of himself like God, does not suffer it to rest upon 
 their resembling each other, by both working on the 
 Sabbath day; but proceeds to point out to them other 
 instances of such resemblance, such as his doing what- 
 soever things he seeth his Father do, and his quicken- 
 ing whom he will as his Father doth: but not one 
 word is there in his whole discourse, denoting equality 
 with his Father ; but, on the contrary, express ac- 
 knowledgements that even his authority and his life 
 were his Father's gifts, and that of himself he could 
 do nothing at all. What was there in his calling 
 God his Father, to shew that he made himself equal 
 to him ? Does he not encourage us to call the same 
 God our Father, and to resemble and be like him, 
 who is the great source and pattern of all perfection ? 
 and does he not, even after his resurrection, call him 
 his Father, and our Father, his God, and our God ? 
 It does not appear, however, that his working on
 
 153 
 
 the Sabbath, and calling God his father, brought up- 
 on him any charge of blasphemy: but if they had, 
 and the Jews had in reality also charged him with 
 making himself equal with God, I do not perceive 
 what advantage you could have derived from it; for 
 surely you would not have attempted to prove him to 
 be equal with God, upon the testimony of false accusers ! 
 You would, in the exercise of common candour, have 
 allowed him at least equal credit with his opponents, 
 and have inquired what he said of himself, and not 
 have formed your opinion of him from what was ad- 
 vanced against him by his enemies. In John x. 33, 
 it does appear that they charged him with blasphemy 
 for making himself God, or a God : but there also 
 it appears to have been a false charge, and, as our 
 Lord himself shews, would not, in the sense in which 
 he understood the word, have amounted to blasphemy, 
 had it been true. Whether these false accusations 
 on the part of the Jews proceeded from ignorance or 
 malice, or from both, it is not material at present to 
 ascertain. To ascribe them to ignorance alone, would, 
 if possible, be the most charitable construction : but 
 even upon that supposition, are we to take the igno- 
 rant for our instructors ? Our Lord himself upon an- 
 other pccasion, speaking of them, and of their most 
 eminent and learned leaders, the Pharisees, says, 
 Matt. xv. 14, "Let them alone; they be blind leaders 
 of the blind." Shall we select such persons then for 
 our teachers, when, if we commit ourselves to the di-
 
 154 
 
 rection of blind guides, we know so well where they 
 are likely to conduct us ? 
 
 What blasphemy was, in the estimation of the Jews, 
 it is not very easy to determine; the law of blasphemy, 
 as they understood it, being of a very undefined cha- 
 racter. They certainly did not annex the same ideas 
 to the term as we do ; but were very ready to impute 
 blasphemy, and to take up stones to stone God's mes- 
 sengers and prophets, upon comparatively very slight 
 occasions. It seems not to have been at all neces- 
 sary for a man to make himself God, or a God, or to 
 speak against God, to incur the charge of blasphemy 
 from this violent, ignorant, and bigoted people; but 
 that what they called blasphemy might be committed 
 by speaking against Moses, or even against the law, 
 or the temple, or city of Jerusalem. See Acts vi. 
 11, 13, 14, where it appears that our blessed Lord 
 was by no means the only one of the inspired mes- 
 sengers of Heaven, who incurred this charge of blas- 
 phemy from them: Stephen, who was also an inspired 
 messenger of God, being there represented to have 
 been put to death by them upon this charge, which 
 was alleged to have been committed by his speaking 
 against Moses, the law, and the temple, or city. 
 
 I perfectly coincide with you, my dear Sir, in opinion, 
 " that instead of applying to the study of the. New 
 Testament as men without previous ideas, we should 
 apply to it as a Continuation of the Old Testament; 
 and in order to understand the evangelists and apo-
 
 155 
 
 sties, we should consider them as speaking; the lan- 
 guage of men full of Old Testament ideas.'' Let us 
 examine, therefore, what ideas concerning the nature 
 of the Supreme Being are to be be collected from the 
 Old Testament. On consulting that portion of the 
 sacred volume, we find almost every where, clear, 
 plain, numerous, and repeated declarations of the 
 divine unity ; but not a syllable about the doctrine of 
 the Trinity. Not a single passage states, that the 
 divine Being consists of three persons, much less of 
 three persons equal in power and glory. The most 
 deep and absolute silence upon this subject reigns 
 throughout the whole work. Not one writer of the 
 records contained in it, ever professes even to have 
 heard of such a doctrine. We find Old Testament 
 ideas concerning the nature of the Supreme Being 
 conveyed in such words as these ; " Hear, O Israel! 
 Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah." Deut. vi. 4. 
 " Jehovah he is God. There is none else beside him" 
 Deut. iv. 35. "Know therefore this day, and con- 
 sider it in thy heart, that Jehovah he is God in heaven 
 above, and upon the earth beneath. There is none 
 else." Deut. iv. 39. "To whom then will ye liken 
 God ? or what likeness will ye compare unto him ? " 
 Isaiah xl. 18. "To whom then will ye liken me, or 
 shall /be equal ? saith the Holy One." Id. 25. "Before 
 me, there was no God formed, neither shall there be 
 any after me. /, even I, am the Lord ; and beside 
 me there is no Saviour." Isaiah xliii. 10, 11. " Thus
 
 156 
 
 saith Jehovah, and his (that is Israel's) redeemer, Je- 
 hovah of Hosts : I am the first, and I am the last ; 
 and beside me there is no God." Isaiah xliv. 6. "Is 
 there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know 
 not any." Id. 8. " I am Jehovah, and there is none 
 else. There is no God beside me." Isaiah xlv. 6. "For 
 thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, God 
 himself that formed the earth and made it. He hath 
 established it. He created it not in vain. He formed 
 it to be inhabited. I am Jehovah, and there is none 
 else." Id. 18. "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, 
 let them take counsel together : who hath declared 
 this from ancient time ? who hath told it from that 
 time ? Have not I Jehovah ? and there is no God else 
 beside me; a just God, and a Saviour. There is none 
 beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the 
 ends of the earth ; for / am God, and there is none 
 else." Id. 21, 22. "Remember the former times of old; 
 for / am God, and there is none else. / am God, 
 and there is none like me ; declaring the end from the 
 beginning, and from ancient times the things that are 
 not yet done ; saying, My counsel shall stand, and / 
 will do all my pleasure." Isaiah xlvi. 9, 10. 
 
 Such are the declarations of the Supreme Being, 
 the great Jehovah himself, clearly, unequivocally, and 
 repeatedly, inculcating the doctrine of the divine 
 UNITY ; and such are the Old Testament ideas, of 
 which the evangelists and apostles must have been 
 full, and not of Trinitarian ideas, which are no where
 
 to be found in the books of the Old Testament. It is 
 also highly worthy of remark, that these are some of 
 the most important things, which God spoke to the 
 Jewish fathers by the prophets : and as the apostle in- 
 forms us (Heb. i. 1,2) that it was God the Father 
 who spoke to the fathers by the prophets, by declaring 
 that God who spoke to them by the prophets, hath in 
 these last days spoken unto us by his Son,- which ex- 
 cludes all idea of its having been the Son himself, or 
 the Trinity collectively, which includes the Son, and 
 which would be a still more remote and extravagant 
 idea, as it would make him his own Son, and the Son 
 of the Holy Ghost as well as of the Father; it will be 
 important to consider, how the declarations I have 
 cited, bear upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, keeping 
 fully in our view, by whom, according to the apostles' 
 statement, they were made, namely, the Father. Now 
 it appears by them, that this great Being, the supreme 
 FATHER of all, has declared that he is one Jehovah, 
 that he is God, that there is none else beside him, that 
 besides him there is no Saviour, that there is no God 
 beside him, that he knows not of any, that there is 
 none like him, none equal to him, none to be compared 
 to him. But the Trinitarian, on the other hand, is 
 compelled, in order to support his system, to contend, 
 in contradiction to all this, that there are two others 
 like him, and equal to him, possessed of every perfec- 
 tion he is possessed of, and equally entitled to our 
 prayers, and every other act of religious worship; that
 
 158 
 
 there are two persons who are God, beside him the 
 Father; and that there is another Saviour besides him, 
 who instead of being a Saviour, as his representative, 
 agent, and instrument, is more strictly and emphati- 
 cally a Saviour than himself. 
 
 Are these the Old Testament ideas, of which we 
 must consider the evangelists and apostles to have 
 been full ? Unfortunately for the Trinitarian cause, 
 they are no more to be found in the New Testament, 
 than in the Old, and where else are we to look for 
 proofs of them ? 
 
 You appear at present, my good friend, rather to 
 shrink from any further reference to the Greek fathers, 
 on finding their evidence turn out rather unfavourably 
 for you : but you will recollect that they were your 
 own witnesses, and not mine. Having produced them, 
 however, you must be content to take them, as we 
 take our wives, for better and for worse. As you had 
 introduced them, I thought fit to put a few questions 
 to them on the other side, by way of cross examina- 
 tion, in order to extract the truth from them, as we 
 frequently do from unwilling witnesses, against their 
 inclinations ; and I can assure you I have not yet 
 done with them ; but shall propose a few more ques- 
 tions to them before we part, as you will perceive in 
 the sequel. 
 
 I can nevertheless assure you, my dear Sir, that I 
 am not conscious of having supposed you to lay more 
 stress upon their authority than you really do, having
 
 150 
 
 merely answered two objections you had, upon their 
 supposed authority, taken to my arguments, accom- 
 panied with the observation that they understood their 
 language better than \ve do, by referring you to our 
 Saviour's own language in one instance, and to the 
 writings of some of the most eminent of these fathers 
 in the other, in support of my positions. They were 
 many of them very sensible and acute writers, and 
 no doubt perfectly understood their own language, for 
 which reason what they say is well entitled to our 
 attention ; but at the same time they were very falli- 
 ble, and laboured under strong prejudices, which 
 renders it incumbent upon us to examine thoroughly 
 all that they advance, to compare it, where we can, 
 with the Scriptures, and then to determine for our- 
 selves. 
 
 You observe, " that the reason why Qsog is anar- 
 throus in John i. 1, is well known to be this; that the 
 Greeks thus expressed the predicate of a proposition, 
 in distinction from the subject, which has the article ; 
 that in English, mere position may distinguish the 
 subject from the predicate, but that I am aware that 
 Latin and Greek position is left more at liberty, so that 
 other modes of marking exact signification are necessary 
 f that to have prefixed the article toQ;o$ would there- 
 fore have made it a mere identical proposition, where 
 the subject might be the predicate, and the predicate 
 the subject; and which, perhaps, I might think would 
 suit your hypothesis ; but that it would not, for that you
 
 tmly admitted that the Word was God, not vice versa. 
 Thus if you were writing in Greek, and wished to ex- 
 press what you thought the apostle's meaning, you could 
 with propriety do it in no other way than he has done." 
 But, my dear Sir, where are your proofs, that the 
 reason why &sos is anarthrous in this instance, which 
 you decidedly state to have been so well known, is 
 because the Greeks thus expressed the predicate of a 
 proposition, in distinction from the subject which has 
 the article? I deny that the evangelist knew of any 
 such rule as you mention, and consequently deny 
 that this was the reason for his writing eo$, as applied 
 to the IFord, without the article; and I shall call up- 
 on the evangelist himself, as well as upon other more 
 competent witnesses than any modern writers, to sup- 
 port me to the full extent of this. We shall be con- 
 vinced at once, that the rule was unknown to the 
 evangelist, if we cast "our eyes only three verses lower 
 ki this very chapter, where we find him writing, as an 
 utter stranger to any such rule, and directly contrary 
 to it if any such existed, in these words, KU.I v\ ^y\ vjy 
 TO (pus TMV a^p&TTwy. Here y ^w/i) with the article, is 
 the subject, and TO (pug TMV ctvQpuTruv, also with the 
 article, the predicate. Hence it is plain, that the 
 evangelist knew of no such rule when he wrote the 
 fourth verse : and who will believe that he knew it, and 
 regulated himself by it, when he wrote the first ? No, 
 my dear Sir, the beloved apostle had another, and a 
 better reason, which we need not go far to discover.
 
 161 
 
 He did not make the distinction without a difference ; 
 but had an extremely good reason for making it. He 
 remembered well, when he wrote the first chapter of 
 his Gospel, the discourse our Lord had with the Jews, 
 which he has himself recorded in the tenth chapter of 
 it. He knew, that our Lord himself had made the 
 distinction, intimating that he should have been jus- 
 tified in applying the word to himself in the inferior 
 sense of it; in which when used absolutely, it. is never 
 written with the article, and therefore, following the 
 example of his Master, did the like, and accordingly 
 used it in the inferior sense here, and therefore wrote 
 it without the article. 
 
 If he had designed to use both Qsov and $og in 
 the first verse of this chapter, in the same sense, it is 
 clear that he knew of no rule to prevent him from 
 expressing both in the same manner, by prefixing the 
 article to the latter, as well as to the former, and it 
 was far more natural and likely for him to have done 
 so ; as it would have expressed his meaning with 
 greater precision and certainty. This supposed rule 
 was also quite unknown to the apostle Paul, who, in 
 entire ignorance of any such, writes thus, in his First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 3, Hocvrog av$t>o$ v\ Ks(puty 
 o Xgi<TTc$ s<TTi. The same may be said of the author 
 of the Book of Revelations, who in chap. xix. ver. 
 10, writes thus : y yu^ pocgrvgia TOV Iqrov SCTTI 10 
 TrvsvuocTYisTrpcfiqTStug. It was equally unknown to 
 Eusebius bishop of Ceesarea, one of the most learned 
 
 M
 
 162 
 
 of the Greek fathers, who flourished towards the close 
 of the third and early in the fourth century, and who, 
 having written in the Greek language, which was his 
 mother tongue, almost all his life-time, must have 
 been much better acquainted with its rules than any 
 modern writer can be; and who, in his observations on 
 this very passage, also contradicts, not only the sup- 
 posed rule, but also the concluding remark, which you 
 have unwarily been induced to hazard, from your be- 
 lief of its existence, and of its having been known to 
 the evangelist, shewing, that if you were writing in 
 Greek, and wished to express what you thought to be 
 the apostle's meaning, that is the Trinitarian meaning, 
 you might with perfect propriety have done it other- 
 wise than the apostle has done, merely by prefixing the 
 article to 0fof, as the apostle might have done, had 
 he thought as you do; but which he has not done, 
 because he thought otherwise, and intended to express 
 a different meaning. 
 
 The words of the learned father are as follow : "2x- 
 $w$ TOVT&V 7rap;<rT)7 olog ns yv (vid. o Acycf) STr/cruyaTr- 
 TUV sjrys xai Afywv' 'Ka/ 00f ^v o' Asycg-.' ^wtxpsvo; yew 
 
 ZtTTSlVy ' K/ 1JV Ao/Cg 1 ,' JU,T TV] TOV UgQgOV TTpCtT- 
 
 GijKijs* si yz Iv KOI i ftxvTOV v\ytno TOV TocTSpx sivai, xcci 
 rov vtov' avrov TS sivtxt IQV hoyov, TOV STTITTOCVTUV EOV. 
 That is, he (the evangelist) has plainly exhibited what 
 was the nature of *the Word,' by adding afterwards, 
 c And the Word was 3^, a God;' having it in his power 
 to say, And the Word was o Sso$, God, with the ad-
 
 163 
 
 dition of the article, if he had thought the Father 
 and the Son to be one and the same, and the Son to 
 be God over all." Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. lib. ii. 
 cap. 17. Origen expresses similar sentiments in his 
 commentary in loco; I refer you to my former 
 Letter (p. 20) for further authorities and observa- 
 tions upon the application of the word &eoc, without 
 the article, to the Son, and of its application withihe ar- 
 ticle, wherever it is used absolutely, to the Father only. 
 I proceed to consider the second branch of your 
 argument ; that to have prefixed the article to Qeoj 
 would have made it a mere identical proposition, 
 where the subject might be the predicate, and the 
 predicate the subject. This brings us at once to the 
 logic of the schools. Let us see, therefore, how the 
 point will stand upon the principles adopted in that 
 science, as they are laid down in part i. chap. 1, of 
 that excellent work upon logic by the late Dr. Watts, 
 which was long considered a kind of standard per- 
 formance, and is in almost every one's hands. Accord- 
 ing to the rules there laid down, it appears, that to 
 make a proposition identical, both the terms, and the 
 ideas, of the subject, and the predicate, must be the 
 same ; for if either the ideas or the terms differ, the 
 proposition is not identical. In the proposition * God 
 is God,' the terms and the ideas are the same, and 
 therefore the proposition is identical, and of no value; 
 but in the propositions, ' Jehovah is God,' ' a billow is 
 a wave/ <a globe is a round body,' the terms differ, and 
 
 M 2
 
 164 
 
 therefore they are not identical. In John i. 1, to 
 have prefixed the article to 0sf, Would not, as you 
 have stated, have made the proposition identical; for 
 the terms would have differed; and however you 
 might transpose the words, they would not constitute 
 an identical proposition. In the proposition in ques- 
 tion, with the addition of the article before Q;OS, Ka2 
 o so$ y\v o Acyof, whether you consider o Acy 05 to be 
 the subject, and o Qsog yv to be the predicate, as in 
 the common version ; or o so$ to be the subject, and 
 qv o Xoyos to he the predicate, and whether f og be 
 written with or witnout the article, the terms would 
 differ, and consequently the proposition would not be 
 identical. It is by no means wonderful, that the Tri- 
 nitarian cause should derive no benefit from an appeal 
 to the rules of logic ; for if logic, as has been always 
 represented, teaches the right use of reason, it will 
 never teach the doctrine of the Trinity, which is as 
 repugnant to reason, as it is to Scripture. Indeed, 
 as has been already observed by some of its most 
 zealous advocates, if it be not authoritatively taught 
 by Scripture, it cannot be established by reason ; and 
 were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be 
 exploded as a contradiction, or absurdity. 
 
 You next state " that my argument concludes, to 
 your great surprise, with the assumption, that o Qsos 
 is never applied to Christ; but that I must be avvare fj 
 that Trinitarians produce many passages to the con- 
 trary; that on first looking into my letter, you open-
 
 165 
 
 ed your Greek Testament on John xx. 28, o so$ 
 &c. ; that I must be aware also, that Heb. i. 8, and 
 Rom. ix. 5, are adduced to the same purpose. So 
 2 Pet. i. 1 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; and iii. 4, 'the philanthropy 
 of our Saviour God,' &c. : for you say, the article be- 
 ing prefixed to the former noun, and not the latter, 
 shews that the same person was intended." If you 
 will have the goodness to refer to my letter again, 
 you will find that you have .a little misapprehended 
 me, and that I have not made the assumption in ques- 
 tion, not having expressed myself so decidedly upon 
 the subject as you suppose ; my words being, in the 
 place to which I presume you allude, " for though 
 iog-, without the article, is frequently applied to God 
 the Father, yet o Ssos, with the article, is usually, for 
 any thing 1 know universally, (where no particular 
 Heathen God is mentioned or referred to,) applied to 
 God the Father only." In the only other place to 
 which your remark can apply, my words are, " If the 
 word ;o$, supposing it to be applied to our Saviour, 
 is not used in an inferior sense, as it was when ap- 
 plied to other messengers and prophets, who were 
 men like ourselves, why is not our $>&V\Q\W frequently 
 called o Sso$, as well as the Father, who is so called 
 in the Scriptures hundreds, not to say thousands of 
 times ? For what reason is this distinction made 
 without a difference ?" Now I really do not know, 
 even at present, where the term o &so$, God with the 
 article, is applied to Christ. If any such application
 
 166 
 
 is to be found, I know it not. It is possible, but I 
 am as yet wholly unacquainted with it ; the few texts 
 you have cited for the purpose, not proving it, as I 
 shall shew immediately. Having had opportunities, 
 however, of investigating the point more fully since, 
 than I had then, I think I am enabled to say that 
 o @- : cc, God, with the article, and without any pronoun 
 or other word to limit and restrain its meaning, that 
 is o :og absolutely, which it is obvious is all that is 
 meant, is never applied either to Christ, or to any 
 other person than the God and Father of Christ. 
 
 But greatly as you, my dear Sir, seem to have been 
 
 surprised at my considering the term o &,og God, with 
 
 the article, not to have been applied to Christ, I should 
 
 -have felt much greater surprise, if you had been able 
 
 to find, on opening your Greek Testament, what 
 
 neither Origen, nor Eusebius, nor Clemens Alexan- 
 
 drinus, in ancient, nor Dr. Clarke in modern times, 
 
 had ever been able to discover in their whole lives. 
 
 To ascertain, however, whether you have been thus 
 
 fortunate, or whether an ardent zeal for what you 
 
 consider to be the truth, which sometimes influences 
 
 us all, may not in a slight degree have misled you, 
 
 let us examine the several texts you have cited. In 
 
 John xx. 28, Thomas is represented, on having his 
 
 disbelief of our Lord's resurrection suddenly removed, 
 
 by seeing him, and being invited to behold his hands, 
 
 and reach over his finger for the purpose of putting 
 
 it into the print of the nails, and to reach over his
 
 167 
 
 hand and put it^into his side to have answered, and 
 said, two things, f O Kvgiog pov, ?ca/ o Qsog pou' in the 
 common version "My Lord, and my God." Here, how- 
 ever, the word &sog does not stand absolute, but is 
 qualified by the pronoun pov : and therefore, even sup- 
 posing it to be in the nominative case, is no more in 
 point, than if an unconverted Greek, who worshipped 
 Apollo, had called Apollo o Qsog pcv, ' the God of 
 me.' Besides this, the literal translation in English, 
 as well as the meaning of the. Greek, taking the nouns 
 to be in the nominative case, will be, "And Thomas 
 answered, and said to him, 'The Lord of me, and the 
 God of me.'" If he had added two words more, and 
 had said " Thou art the Lord of me, and thou art 
 the God of me," this would have made the passage 
 sense, though, on account of the qualification, it still 
 would not have decided this question. But it is 
 more probable, that o Kvptog pov, KOCI o to? /xou, are 
 both in the vocative ; as this will make sense of the 
 whole, without any addition ; and then the passage 
 will amount to an exclamation, and o, instead of 
 standing as the definite article, meaning 'the' in En- 
 glish, will stand for the sign of the vocative, and be 
 4 O' in English, and will properly be rendered, * O my 
 Lord, and O my God/ or literally, ' O Lord of me, 
 and O God of me.' Of this we have numerous in- 
 stances, even in the Scriptures. I shall quote one, 
 where it stands as I have mentioned, and is so ren- 
 dered even in the common version. Rev. vi, 10,
 
 168 
 
 TTOTS o JfcrTTor^ o uyiog Ktxi o ahvjQivog.- "How 
 long, O Lord, holy and true." See also Markxv. 34; 
 Luke x. 21 ; Id. xviii. 11, 13; Rev. xviii. 4. This 
 text, therefore, on both these accounts will not answer 
 the purpose for which it is cited. 
 
 Even laying the qualification entirely out of the 
 case, the text would be no authority for the application 
 of the term o sof, that is ( God' with the article, to 
 our blessed Lord, supposing o &sos upon this occasion 
 to have been spoken o/'him, as well as to him, and 
 that there was equal teason for considering the nouns 
 to be in the nominative with the article, as in the 
 vocative without it ; it being obvious, that a passage 
 admitting equally well of each construction, cannot 
 be an authority for either. I am not disposed, how- 
 ever, to let the matter rest here ; as I consider the rea- 
 sons for believing it to be in the vocative, and Qsog 
 in this place to be * God' without the article, to pre- 
 ponderate greatly. One of them I have already as- 
 signed, namely, that it renders the sense of the whole 
 complete, without alteration or addition. Another 
 is, that o ;o$ 'God' with the article, wherever it stands 
 absolute, and its application is clear and certain, is 
 uniformly applied to the Father only, and never to 
 our Lord, or to any other person but the Father. 
 Ought we not then to construe a doubtful passage, 
 by such as are clear ? a passage which supplies us with 
 no certain principle to guide us, by others which do ? 
 Would it not be irrational, in any other case, to act
 
 169 
 
 otherwise ? When, in addition to this, we find 
 without the article applied to other persons besides 
 God the Father; when we find it to .have been inti- 
 mated by our Lord, that fie should have been justified 
 in applying it to himself, because it had been applied 
 to others before him ; does not this furnish us with a 
 further reason for construing it in this sense ? What 
 grounds are there for thinking, that Thomas, sup- 
 posing him to have spoken the words o Qsog ju,ou of 
 our Saviour as well as to him, considered him to be 
 more than a God in the inferior Jewish sense of the 
 word, which means a prophet, judge, or ruler ? If any 
 one can imagine that he did, that he considered him 
 to be God in the superior sense of the word, let him 
 read what almost immediately follows ; which I should 
 think must convince him, that this exclamation never 
 meant that our Lord was o Qsoc, ( the God/ meaning 
 the Supreme Being \ nor was written that we might 
 believe so ; but only that he was the Christ, the Son 
 of God. The words are, (ver. 30, 31,) " And many 
 other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his dis- 
 ciples, which are not written in this book ; but these 
 are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is," What ? 
 o sos, ' God' with the article, ' God himself ?' no such 
 thing; but the Christ, the son, iov Qsou 'of God' with 
 the article. 
 
 There have been eminent critics who have consi- 
 dered the words as a sudden exclamation, on the 
 instantaneous removal of the apostle's unbelief upon
 
 170 
 
 thesubjectof our Lord's resurrection, of 'O my Lord T 
 admitting with surprise, that it was indeed his Lord 
 who had been raised from the dead and stood before 
 him ; and ' O my God !' directing his thoughts to, and 
 acknowledging the gracious interposition of, that God, 
 who his Lord had previously informed him was to 
 raise him from the dead, and who was preached 
 shortly after by the apostles and their disciples, as 
 the God that raised him. I cannot say that the 
 passage will not bear this construction, as I do not 
 consider it to be invalidated by the observation, that 
 we must construe the words, ' O my God,' to be ad- 
 dressed to Jesus, and to mean him, as well as the pre- 
 ceding words 'O my Lord,' because they are connected 
 by the conjunction and: but this by no means fol- 
 lows in sudden exclamations, where 'abrupt transitions 
 may be expected. We find one still more abrupt in 
 1 Sam. xx. 12 : "And Jonathan said unto DAVID, 
 O Lord God of Israel, when I have sounded my fa- 
 ther about to-morrow any time, or the third day, and 
 behold if there be good towards David, and I then 
 send not unto thee, and shew it thee, the Lord do so 
 and more to Jonathan." Supposing this to be the ge- 
 nuine construction of the passage, it equally shews it 
 to be no authority for the application of the term <5 
 <3)so$ to our Lord, or for any other Trinitarian pur- 
 pose, but the reverse. 
 
 I proceed to Heb. i, 8: Upos $STOV vlov, 'O Spovog 
 <rov t o 050$-, sis Tovaiwva TOVCCI&VOS, rendered in the com*
 
 171 
 
 mon version, " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 
 O God, is for ever and ever." This text is equally, or 
 even more unfit for your purpose than the last. In the 
 first place, it will admit of being understood, as it is 
 in the common version, to be in the vocative; in which 
 case it will prove nothing, as to the application of 
 <? with the article to our Lord, for it would 
 upon that supposition be God without the article, 
 and would moreover be most likely to have been used 
 in the inferior sense, in which sense only it is applied 
 to our Lord in any text where the meaning is plain 
 and clear. In the second place, supposing it to be in 
 the nominative case, as I conceive it is, upon which 
 supposition it will be God with the article, it will 
 be difficult to put any construction upon it, which 
 will not make it denote the Father, and exclude the 
 Son. Dr. Clarke, Grotius, Pierce, Wakefield, Lindsey, 
 and many others, think it may, with equal propriety, 
 be rendered ' God is thy throne for ever and ever.' 
 Sykes considers the meaning to be, ' God is the sup- 
 port of thy throne.' In point of mere grammatical 
 construction, it may be considered as being either in 
 the nominative or in the vocative, and is at least as 
 likely to be in the former as in the latter ; for which 
 reason, it can be no proof either way, To put this 
 quite out of doubt, Mr. Yates has furnished a parallel 
 in the sequel to his Vindication, p. 113: C O Sgovo$ 
 trou o Qso$ tig TOV aiwvcc' Heb. i. 8. 'H (Aspig pov o 
 o$ sis Toy atuvct' Psal. Ixxiii. 26. (Sept.) The
 
 17-2 
 
 former of these may be translated, ' Thy throne is God 
 for ever/ or ' God is thy throne for ever:' and the lat- 
 ter, * My portion is God for ever,' or 'God is my 
 portion for ever ;' which last is the translation actually 
 adopted in the common version. Some have object- 
 ed to God being called a throne, as if it were deroga- 
 tory to his majesty and dignity; but nothing is more 
 common in Scripture, than to call this great and 
 supereminently glorious Being, figuratively, by similar 
 names. Thus in Psalm Ixxxiv. 9 : Behold : God is 
 our Shield. Id. 11: For the Lord is a Sun and a 
 Shield. Psalm xcii. 15. To shew that the Lord is 
 upright, he is my Rock. 
 
 The next text you quote is Rom. ix. 5, 'flv ol KK- 
 repsSt Kent s% uv o Xp/o-rog- TO KOCT% o-txgKx, o wv STTiTrav- 
 TUV jog- fiiAoyjjrof sig rovg ai^vtxg' rendered in the 
 common version, "Whose are the Fathers, and of 
 whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is 
 over all, God blessed for ever." This text I cannot 
 help observing appears to me to be still more excep- 
 tionable for the present purpose, than either of the 
 former ; not merely because 0.^ is qualified, but be- 
 cause the article is not prefixed to so.-, but to ' uv 
 and sog is left without an article. In the next place, 
 it is as likely, to say the least, that eog is applied by 
 the apostle to the Father, as to the Son, and that o 
 WY SKI TTUVTUV @0 svXoynTOg sig Tov$ aiuvtxg is an 
 ascription of praise to him, for the coming of Christ, 
 and ought to be rendered, " He who is God over all
 
 173 
 
 be blessed for ever." This interpretation is supported 
 by Erasmus, Bucer, and Le Clerc, though all three 
 known Trinitarians ; and by Grotius, Wetstein, Dr. 
 Clarke, Mr. Locke, Mr. Lindsey, and many others. 
 What, however, carries it still further in favour of the 
 latter interpretation is, that several of the most emi- 
 nent of the Fathers in the first four centuries, express 
 themselves in such terms as to shew that they must 
 have taken it in this sense, and that it was impossible 
 they could have understood it in the sense adopted by 
 our common version, as they expressly deny, that our 
 Lord was o STTL TTOIVTUV Qtos, ( the God who is over all.* 
 Dr. Clarke tells us, that the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 and the longer epistles of Ignatius, which, thougji of 
 dubious authority, are very ancient, represent it as a 
 branch of the Gnostic heresy to affirm Christ to be 
 himself absolutely TOV STTI TTCCVTWV foi/, 'the God over 
 all.' Const, lib. vi. c. 26. Epist. ad Tarsens. sect. 5. 
 And Origen calls it rashness (which he would not 
 have done, had he thought it to be the doctrine of St. 
 Paul) to suppose Christ to be the God over all, as 
 being inconsistent with his own words, "My Father is 
 greater than I." " Ecrroi $s, TIVOCS &g sv TrfyQsi TTKTTSV- 
 KOCI os i ojLsvtov$ioi(c*jviocv, ^toc TVv7ror.'TSioiv VTTOTI- 
 
 stvsci TOV ps 
 
 CVTl y Yl^Zig TOtXTOV, 01 TTSlS 
 
 TT-S^OCS //,, utuv pov-srTt* Cont. Cels. lib.viii. p. 387- 
 And even Eusebius, in all his books against Marcellus, 
 lays it down as the constant known doctrine of the
 
 174 
 
 church, that Christ himself is not o STTI TTCCVTWV 
 and o eTTixsnot ruv oXuvQsog, 'The God over all,' but 
 that these are the peculiar titles of the Father; and he 
 particularly affirms, that whosoever applies these titles 
 to the Son, cannot be a piom person" 
 
 You then cite Tit. ii. 13: Ti^oa-lsy^opzvci T/,V poiKot- 
 piav sXTriSa, KXI STTifiavsiav TTJ; $O%YI$ TOV jotjyaAou sou 
 Kai ^MTyjpog Yipwv 1/jcrou Xf KTTOV' translated in the com- 
 mon version, " Looking for that blessed hope and the 
 glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ." And 2 Pet. i. 1 : Tots KTOTI^OV y 
 Aa%0wr/ TT/CTT/V sv ^Dtociocrwr, rovQeov yptav KOCI 
 lytrov XP/JTOU* in the common version, "To them 
 that have obtained like precious faith with us, through 
 the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." Both these texts, however, fall short of the 
 point in question, even supposing the common ver- 
 sion to be wrong, and that right, which you must 
 contend for in order to overturn it, namely, that for 
 want of the repetition of the pronoun jpuv before 
 Swrjjpcf, the whole must be construed as spoken of 
 one and the same person; and therefore, that the 
 words TOV //.fyaAcu .-0u, ' the great God,' with the 
 article, in the first, and TOV s:v 'the God,' alsotwV/i 
 the article, in the second, are applied to our Saviour ; 
 for upon this supposition, it is in the first instance 
 the great God, and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ ; so 
 that the word ypuv qualifies the words TOV 
 sov, as well as SWT^J^: and in the second, y
 
 175 
 
 coming immediately after TOV sou, qualifies those 
 words also, which renders both texts inapplicable to 
 the purposes for which you have quoted them, and 
 Qsov requires the definite article, merely because it is 
 definite, exactly as it would require it, where the word 
 God was taken in the inferior sense ; just as if any 
 prophet, ruler, or judge, belonging to any particular 
 country, town, or society, had been spoken of by his 
 countrymen, or followers ; or as if any of the heathens 
 had been speaking of their particular Gods : as it is 
 vised, for instance, Acts xix. 37; Hyayers yap rovg 
 avfyag Tourcug 1 , OVTS /fpocruXou^, TP ^Aacr^'^ouj'Ta^ rqv 
 Szuv vpuv' " For ye have brought hither these men, 
 who are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphe- 
 mers of your goddess." Consequently, if TOV fou 
 was in either place applicable to Christ, non constat, 
 that it would prove any thing more, than that he was 
 a great Prophet, Ruler, or Judge. But I cannot 
 agree with you, that either of the texts in question 
 furnishes any proof that TOV psyahov ecu in the first, 
 or TOV &sov y\puv in the second, are applied to Christ, 
 the construction of these texts, at all events, not re- 
 quiring it; besides which, as in all those passages in 
 the New Testament where the meaning is clear and 
 unambiguous, which are very numerous, =cg-, with 
 the article, means 'God the Father,' so in the only 
 two or three passages, where it may be considered 
 doubtful, the safest, as well as the most probable and 
 rational mode of construction would be, to construe
 
 them according to what is clearly the meaning in the 
 .unambiguous passages, for which we have their au- 
 thority , instead of making, to suit aparticular purpose, 
 a different construction, for which we have no autho- 
 rity at all. In the interpretation of all other writings, 
 we make it a rule without any hesitation, to construe 
 what is difficult, by what is plain, what is doubtful, 
 by what is clear; not obscura per obscuriora, (obscure 
 things by things more obscure) ; and I am at a loss 
 to discover, why the Scriptures alone are to be treat- 
 ed less fairly and rationally by us, than any other wri- 
 tings. 
 
 You will tell me, perhaps, that according to Mr. 
 Sharp and Dr. Middleton's rules for construing the 
 Greek article, the first of these texts must be render- 
 ed, 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
 appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;' 
 and the second, * To them that have obtained like 
 precious faith with us through the righteousness of 
 our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;' and that they 
 will not admit of the interpretation in the common 
 version. But you must excuse me for saying, that I 
 do not consider the rules laid down by these learned 
 writers to be any authority whatever : I do not know 
 a single Greek scholar, who thinks that they have es- 
 tablished their system. The late professor Porson, 
 who was one of the most eminent and accomplished 
 critics in Greek literature, that this or any other 
 country in modern times has produced, considered it
 
 177 
 
 to be without foundation, and though he did not write, 
 as was once supposed, the Letters of Gregory Blunt in 
 answer to Mr. Sharp, they were published with his en- 
 tire approbation. 
 
 It does seem extraordinary, that such a compli- 
 cated and ponderous system of rules and canons, upon 
 one single part of speech, resembling an immense la- 
 byrinth, and occupying in Dr. Middleton's work only, 
 no less than seven hundred pages, should have been 
 first started at the close of the 18th or the beginning 
 of the 1 9th century. Like many modern structures, 
 however, it required to be propped up, before it was 
 completed ; the principal rules requiring numerous sub- 
 ordinate and collateral rules, limitations, exceptions, 
 and anomalies, sometimes also called rules, almost 
 without end, to be invented, as objections which would 
 otherwise have been insuperable, were discovered ; 
 and the very props thus applied to support the princi- 
 pal parts of the building, being so unsound and in- 
 capable of supporting themselves, as to require as- 
 sistance in their turn ; and yet the whole together not 
 providing for the various cases that occur, nor proving 
 the principal points intended, particularly those rela- 
 ting to the texts in question, notwithstanding the 
 many minute, subtle, fanciful and unfounded distinc- 
 tions and exceptions, which have been so laboriously 
 accumulated. On the contrary, numerous passages 
 have been produced from Scripture, and other writers, 
 completely at variance with them, and shewing that
 
 178 
 
 they are by no means to be depended upon. This 
 has been successfully proved by the learned author 
 of that masterly criticism upon Dr. Middleton's work 
 in the Monthly Review, vol. 62 ; and what Is more, 
 it has been shewn by Dr. Carpenter, in his " Unita- 
 rianism the Doctrine of the Gospel," pp. 367, 370, 
 that whatever may be the value of these supposed rules, 
 the texts in question may be classed among the ex- 
 ceptions, which the learned fabricators of them have 
 been compelled to lay down, to give them any chance 
 of standing at all, which the Monthly Reviewer has 
 I think proved, that even with this assistance, they 
 cannot do. He has shewn too, that the whole my- 
 stery of the Greek article might be comprised in a 
 single page. If indeed one part of speech only, and 
 that one of the most inconsiderable,, required such a 
 space to lay down arid explain its rules, what a tre- 
 mendous work would a Greek grammar be, treating 
 all the parts of speech in the same manner! 
 
 Let us endeavour, however, to apply another test 
 to these rules, in order to ascertain their intrinsic value 
 for the purposes of this controversy. Had they been 
 well founded, and known to, and made use of by, the 
 ancient Greek writers, particularly the writers of the 
 New Testament, and their followers during the three 
 succeeding centuries, it is impossible to believe that 
 we should not have had the whole body of the Fathers, 
 who during a considerable part of that period wrote 
 upon the subject of the Trinity, or at least a very
 
 179 
 
 -Vi. '*%;- :-:!{?*!)' -^ 
 
 great majority of them, quoting the celebrated texts 
 
 which are now "so confidently referred to according to 
 this new-made system, putting the same construction 
 upon the article, and laying the utmost weight upon 
 it, as these two modern writers do. But will any one 
 pretend to say that this, or any thing like it, was the 
 case ? What then is the inference ; but that at the 
 periods when they composed their different works 
 which have come down to us, no such rules for the 
 construction of the article were established or thought 
 of, and that such was not in their times the construc- 
 tion of the passages in question ? 
 
 If Origen had been of opinion, that in these texts 
 God and Christ were intended to be represented as 
 the same person ; that 05 o$ with the article was de- 
 signed to be applied to Christ ; is it possible that he 
 could have said in the passage cited in my former 
 Letter (p. 19), that he who is God of himself (meaning 
 the Father) is o Osog, that is, God with the article ; but 
 that he who is not God of himself, but is so by par- 
 taking of the Divine nature, such as Christ, the first- 
 born of every creature, is Oeof, that is, God without 
 the article ? Could Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus 
 have expressed themselves in a similar manner ? 
 
 Before I conclude my observations, however, upon 
 these two texts, I cannot help remarking, as to 2 Pet. 
 i. 1, that it is most singular, but not more singular 
 than true, that in the very next verse (2 Pet. i. 2,) 
 the same words, as Dr. Clarke (whose language, for 
 
 N2
 
 180 
 
 we cannot have better, I shall here adopt,) most truly 
 states, " are repeated in such a construction, as de- 
 termines the sense necessarily, without any ambiguity : 
 7riyvoo<rig TOV sou, K<XL lyarov icv Kup/ou yjpuv, * the 
 knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.' Now 
 since in the second verse these words, the knowledge 
 of God (TOV sou) and of Jesus our Lord, are in the 
 original placed in such a construction as of neces- 
 sity to signify God the Father, in contradistinction to 
 Jesus our Lord, it is probable that, in the first verse 
 likewise, these words the righteousness of God (TOV 
 <&sov) and our /Saviour Jesus Christ, though placed 
 ambiguously in the original, yet were intended in the 
 same manner to signify God the Father, in contra- 
 distinction to Jesus our Saviour." 
 
 I shall now address myself to the only remaining 
 text you have cited to prove that <? fog-, God with 
 the article, is applied to Christ : namely , Tit. iii. 4 : 
 "But after that the kindness and love (philanthropy) 
 of our Saviour God towards man appeared." In the 
 original, * Ore cte ?f ^YJCTTOT^S KUI >j (jD/Aa^p&.'Tr/a S7>s(fioivs 
 TOV (TteTypog ypuv sov. - I am rather surprised that 
 this text should close the catalogue, or even be quoted 
 at all upon this occasion ; not only because the ar- 
 ticle is not prefixed to fof, but to o-a/r/jpcc, and omit- 
 ted before cc^, which even without taking into con- 
 sideration the presence of the pronoun ^uv would 
 render it of no value for this purpose ; but also be- 
 cause it appears so undeniably from the context, that
 
 181 
 
 the words our Saviour God in this text, are spoken 
 of the Father, as contradistinguished from Jesus 
 Christ, who is clearly described as his instrument; 
 that it is extraordinary it should ever have been 
 thought of, to prove them to be the same, or to prove 
 that Jesus Christ was God, from whom he is so ma- 
 nifestly distinguished. Let us take the whole pas- 
 sage together, which is as follows : " But after that 
 the kindness and love of our Saviour God towards 
 man appeared, not by works of righteousness, which 
 we have done, but according to his (that is God's) 
 mercy, he (that is God) saved us by the washing of 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; which 
 he (still meaning God) shed abroad on us abundant- 
 ly, 5/a, that is, ' through,' or ' by the instrumentality 
 of,' (which is the meaning of /,) Jesus Christ our 
 Saviour." Upon any other occasion than that of 
 proving the doctrine of the Trinity, who would ever 
 suppose for a moment, that God our Saviour and 
 Jesus Christ our Saviour were the same ? without 
 which the passage is no proof that Jesus Christ our 
 Saviour is God. What is there to induce us to sup- 
 pose them the same, but that each is called our Sa- 
 viour ? But this is no proof of identity, as each might 
 have been our Saviour in different characters, or 
 senses, or upon different occasions. But this is even 
 weaker than if it stood merely upon calling each of 
 them our Saviour; as it proceeds to state, that one 
 saved us by the instrumentality of the other. If a
 
 182 
 
 powerful monarch were to send one of his generals, 
 at the head of an army, to save an invaded country, 
 and he were to accomplish the ends of his mission, by 
 defeating and expelling the enemy, the people of that 
 country would be very likely to hail the conquering 
 general as their saviour and deliverer. They would 
 also, when their attention was directed to the sove- 
 reign by whose favour he was sent upon this graciolis 
 mission, be just as likely to call him their saviour like- 
 wise, who had saved and delivered them through, or by 
 the instrumentality of, his victorious general and army: 
 yet we should feel somewhat astonished, if we were to 
 be gravely told, that we must consider this to be proof, 
 that the general and his sovereign were the same. 
 
 Having now taken notice of, and animadverted upon, 
 every text you have produced to prove that G)so$ with 
 the article is applied to Christ, I must say, that it 
 appears to me that you have failed in every one of 
 them. As it is applied with the article to the Father 
 only, so clearly and decidedly hundreds of times, 
 and in almost every page of the New Testament, I 
 should have expected one text at least to have been 
 quoted, in which it could have been shewn to have 
 been applied with equal clearness and certainty to 
 Jesus Christ: but none such has been produced. 
 There is not one of them but must be admitted, under 
 the most favourable view that can be taken of it, tq 
 be of an extremely doubtful nature, to say the least, 
 and therefore to be totally unfit to be received as proof.
 
 183 
 
 Such uncertain and ambiguous passages would not, 
 in any other controversy, be admitted to prove the 
 most trifling point of any kind, but would at once be 
 allowed to be no authority either way, even if there 
 were more of them, and they stood alone : but with 
 hundreds of clear and plain instances of the term 
 being applied to another person, and to that other 
 only, with the opinions of some of the most eminent 
 of the early Fathers, and not denied by their contem- 
 poraries that it is applied to that other only, that the 
 Father ONLY is God with the article, and that Christ 
 in particular is God without the article ; to require u* 
 to consider these texts as proofs, that the latter is God 
 with the article, is very much like calling upon us to 
 surrender our understandings at discretion. 
 
 I shall now demonstrate to you how clearly and 
 unequivocally the term o Qscg is applied by the apo- 
 stles and evangelists to the Fajther : to do which I 
 am under no difficulty where to find my proofs^ as you 
 have been, without succeeding at last ; but have to 
 select a few out of multitudes, which, like the stars 
 in the firmament, present themselves to me wherever 
 I turn my eyes, throughout the whole of the New 
 Testament. I shall begin with 1 John, chap. iv. 
 ver. 6 16, because it furnishes in itself a most com- 
 plete and brilliant constellation of such proofs : " We 
 are of God (tx tw QEOV, of God with the article): 
 he that knoweth God (rov :ov, God with the article) 
 heareth us. He that is not of God (ex. T'.V (diov, of
 
 184 
 
 God with the article) heareth not us. Hereby know 
 we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, 
 let us love one another : for love is of God (tn TOV 
 &scv, of God with the article) ; and every one that 
 loveth is born of God (sx, TOV sov, of God with the 
 article), and knoweth God (TOV Qsov, God with the 
 article). He that loveth not knoweth not God {rev 
 Qsov, God with the article) ; for God (d =cc, God 
 with the article) is love. In this was manifested the 
 love of God (TOV <r)sou, of God with the article) towards 
 us, because that God (o Qsog, God with the article) 
 sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we 
 might live through him. Herein is love, not that we 
 loved God (TOV ; o>', God with the article), but that 
 he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation 
 /or mercy seat) for our sins. Beloved, if God (o Qs &f, 
 God with the article) so loved us, we ought also to 
 love one another. No man hath seen God (TOV &so:', 
 God with the article) at any time. If we love one 
 another, God (o fog-, God with the article) dwelleth 
 in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know 
 we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he 
 hath given us of his spirit. And tve have seen, and 
 do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Sa- 
 viour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that 
 Jesus is the Son of God (TCV ecu, of God with the 
 article), God (o Qsof, God with the article) dwelleth 
 in him, and he in God (sv TM i, in God with the 
 article) . And we have known and believed the love
 
 185 
 
 that God (o 0? of, God with the article) hath to- us. 
 God (p 0o$-, God with the article) is love ; and he 
 
 that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God (<v TU 0s, in 
 
 v i i ' 
 
 God with the article), and God (o so$, God with the 
 article) in him." Here we find, in the short compass 
 of eleven verses, twenty-one clear, distinct, and un- 
 disputed instances, of the term o Qsog, absolutely, and 
 unequivocally, being applied to the Father; and, 
 what is more, applied to him as contradistinguished 
 from Christ his Son. So in John's Gospel, iii. 16, 
 we meet with : " For God (o Qsog, God with the ar- 
 ticle) so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son." Again, in John iii. 17 : " For God 
 (o io$, God with the article) sent not his Son into 
 the world to condemn the world." Id. ver. 34 : " For 
 he whom God (o Qsog, God with the article) hath 
 sent, speaketh the words of God (rov ecu, of God 
 with the article) ; for God (o so?, God with the ar- 
 ticle) giveth not the spirit by measure to him." 
 Acts ii. 22 : " Ye men of Israel, hear these words ; 
 Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God (TOD Qsov, 
 of God with the article) by miracles, and wonders, 
 and signs, which God (o 0o^, God with the article) 
 did by him." Id. ver. 32, 33 : " This Jesus hath 
 God (o so$, God with the article) raised up, where- 
 of we are all witnesses. Therefore, being by the right 
 hand of God .(TOV Qscv, of God with the article) ex- 
 alted, and having received of the Father the promise 
 of the holy spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye
 
 186 
 
 now see and hear." Acts iii. 26 : " Unto you first, 
 God (o fogy God with the article), having raised up 
 his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away 
 every one of you from his iniquities." Rorri. v. 10: 
 " For if when we were enemies we were reconciled 
 to God (TW 0<w, to God with the article) by the death 
 of his Son." Rom. viii. 3 : "For what the law could 
 not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God 
 ({5 so$, God with the article) sending his own Son 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned 
 sin in the flesh." Rom. viii. 31, 32 : "If God (<? 
 05cg-, God with the article) be for us, who can be 
 against us ? He that spared not his own Son, but de- 
 livered him up for us all, how shall he not with him 
 also freely give us all things ?" 
 
 Haviiig produced these instances, which are between 
 thirty and forty, out of many hundreds, there being 
 but few pages in the sacred writings which do not 
 furnish more, I again challenge you to produce a 
 single instance, in which this term has ever been 
 clearly, unequivocally and absolutely, applied to the 
 Son, as it is in the passages I have just quoted to the 
 Father. How is it, that our Trinitarian friends, who 
 with so little ceremony, so little care to be correct, con- 
 fidently pronounce, that every name, title and attribute, 
 given to the Father, is applied to the Son, cannot 
 furnish one solitary example of this, amongst others, 
 ever having been distinctly, clearly, and absolutely ap- 
 plied to him ? How happens it, that with the learning
 
 187 
 
 and information you so eminently possess, you have, 
 in every instance in which you have attempted it, so 
 remarkably failed ? Does not this speak volumes ? 
 
 Had you succeeded, however, I should not have ex- 
 pected the observation you next make, " that as a 
 great part of my remarks on John x. go on the sup- 
 position that o 0f is never applied to Christ, you 
 consider what you have said as an answer." Is it 
 possible, my dear Sir, that I can look upon that to be 
 an answer, which does not touch the main point of 
 my argument ? which leaves what I conceive to be the 
 strongest part of it entirely unnoticed ? namely, our 
 Lord's comment upon the charge made against him 
 by the Jews ; his statement of what he considered 
 them as having charged him with, and his own ex- 
 planation of the sense in which HE meant to be un- 
 derstood by what he said, so contrary to the sense 
 which the Trinitarians have put upon his words to 
 render them favourable to their system. This there- 
 fore, which is the material and essential part, stands 
 without an answer; and the passage, unless some 
 satisfactory answer could be given, must be consider- 
 ed, as I have already observed, to be in direct oppo- 
 sition to, instead of being in favour of, the Trinita- 
 rian doctrine. 
 
 Instead of directing your attention principally to 
 this, you have confined yourself to a subordinate and 
 collateral point, which arose incidentally, merely from 
 my translating in my first Letter, Qsov God, or a God,
 
 188 
 
 in the disjunctive, without laying any stress upon it 
 at the time ; and it has grown to its present magni- 
 tude, in consequence of your supposing that there 
 was no foundation for the latter translation, and op- 
 posing it as a vulnerable point ; though the event has 
 proved very different from what you appear to have 
 expected. 
 
 You next observe ; " that my additional remarks 
 on the Saviour being sanctified, (p. 21,) seem to 
 arise from my not adverting to an use of the term 
 sanctify in the Old Testament, from which it is de- 
 rived ; that where it is applied to subjects incapable 
 of moral impurity, as the Saviour, and the vessels of 
 the sanctuary, it signifies ' to set apart to a peculiar 
 use ;' that in this sense the apostles apply to Jesus 
 Christ, what Isaiah says, * Sanctify the Lord of Hosts, 
 and he shall be a stumbling block to the house of 
 Israel ;' and that we know that Christ was to the Jews 
 a stumbling block." 
 
 It does not appear to me what advantage you can 
 derive from this construction of the word sanctify ; 
 inasmuch as the setting apart of any subject for pe- 
 culiar, and those sacred, uses, must either mean the 
 consecration of it for such uses, or the separation of 
 it from other persons, or things, for those uses. Now 
 the first means the same thing, or nearly the same, 
 as ' sanctify,' or ' make holy,' and may, as you ob- 
 serve, be applied to subjects incapable of moral impu- 
 rity : but notwithstanding, they may, till consecrated.
 
 189 
 
 or sanctified, be ceremonially unconsecrated, or un- 
 sanctified, and not be reckoned among the number of 
 holy things dedicated to sacred uses ; as the gift men- 
 tioned Matth. xxiii. 19, though incapable of moral 
 impurity, was ceremonially unconsecrated, and not a 
 sanctified or holy thing till placed upon the altar by 
 which it was consecrated, or sanctified. So our Sa- 
 viour being, according to the Unitarian, and as I 
 conceive the scriptural, view of him upon this occasion, 
 a man of the tribe of Judah, a tribe not dedicated to 
 the priesthood, till he was consecrated, or sanctified by 
 the Father, to be sent into the world, that he might 
 exercise a perpetual priesthood for all mankind, may 
 be considered as having been till then ceremonially un- 
 consecrated, or unsanctified. But according to the Tri- 
 nitarian hypothesis, it was the divine Logos before he 
 was united to a human nature, and sent into the world, 
 who was in every respect equal to the Father, and 
 who must have been from all eternity most holy, as 
 holy as the Father himself, and have required no con- 
 secration, or sanctification, to qualify him for all sa- 
 cred and religious purposes whatever; that was not only 
 sent, which in itself implies inferiority, but was also 
 sanctified or consecrated by the Father, and by the 
 Father only, leaving the Holy Ghost (who is according 
 to that hypothesis considered the sanctifier) quite out of 
 the question ; which is not only irreconcileable with the 
 Trinitarian system itself, but is destitute of all evidence. 
 The only other meaning of sanctifying, construed
 
 190 
 
 as setting apart any subject for peculiar^ and those 
 sacred, uses, is the separation of it from other persons 
 or things. But how could one person, who accord- 
 ing to the Trinitarian theory was infinite, and must 
 have filled infinite space, have been separated from 
 another person, nay from two other persons, each of 
 whom likewise was infinite, and filled infinite space ? 
 and what proof have we of this ? 
 
 Neither the one construction nor the other consti- 
 tutes any difficulty upon Unitarian principles. Whe- 
 ther the meaning of sanctified be * consecrated,' or f set 
 apart/ or according to the plain and ordinary sense of 
 it, c made holy,* the Unitarian considers, that the Fa- 
 ther, previous to the commencement of the glorious 
 ministry of the man Christ Jesus, consecrated him, or 
 made him holy, or, if you please, set him apart for 
 the purposes of his most important office, and sent 
 him into the world that is, amongst mankind to 
 discharge the duties of it, and to preach the glad ti- 
 dings of his Gospel. 
 
 I can by no means subscribe to your representa- 
 tion, that it is in this sense of sanctifying that is, of 
 setting the subject sanctified apart to a peculiar use 
 the apostles apply to Jesus Christ, what Isaiah says, 
 e< Sanctify the Lord of Hosts, and he shall be a stum- 
 bling block to the house of Israel ;" adding, that we 
 know that Christ was a stumbling block to the Jews ; 
 and thence inferring, I suppose, that Christ was the 
 Lord of Hosts. You do not inform me where this
 
 191 
 
 application is made by the apostles ; but as I can find 
 nothing about a stumbling Mock, either in Isaiah, or 
 in any of the Apostolic writings, except in Rom. xi. 9, 
 and Rev. ii. 14, (the former of which refers to 
 Psal. Ixix. 22, and the latter to Numb. xxxi. 16, and 
 neither of them to Isaiah, or to Christ,) I take it for 
 granted, that you allude to the stumbling stone men- 
 tioned in Isaiah viii. 13 and xxviii. 16, and referred 
 to in Rorn. ix. 23, and 1 Pet. ii. 5 8. Now no- 
 thing can be more evident, than that Isaiah (viii. 13) 
 does not by the word sanctify mean setting apart the 
 subject to be sanctified to a peculiar use ; as he is 
 addressing himself to the people, beginning at verse 
 the 9th: and he says, ver. 13, "Sanctify (thereby 
 directing the people to sanctify) the Lord of Hosts, 
 and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread:'* 
 for the Messiah (supposing him to have bee'n allude^ 
 to in this place, which I contend he was not) was not 
 set apart to his great office by the Jewish people, but 
 by the Father ; and, according to the Trinitarian in- 
 terpretation of John x., before his supposed divine 
 nature was united to his human nature ; which is 
 another reason why the people could have had nothing 
 to do with the setting him apart for it, and conse- 
 quently why he (the Son) could not have been al- 
 luded to in this passage, even upon their own hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 It is quite plain, that the word sanctify is here 
 used in a totally different sense, and that " the sanctir
 
 192 
 
 fying of the Lord of Hosts by the people," means, 
 not that they (the people) should set apart the Lord 
 of Hosts to a peculiar use the idea of which is mon- 
 strous ; but that they should honour, reverence, or 
 glorify him ; in which sense it is used Numb. xx. 12 : 
 " And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Be- 
 cause ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes 
 of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring 
 this congregation into the land which I have given 
 them." So in Levit. x. 3, immediately after the de- 
 struction of Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange 
 fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not 
 to do, it is said : " Then Moses said unto Aaron, 
 This is that which the Lord spake, I will be sancti- 
 fied in them that come nigh me, and before all the 
 people I will be glorified." 
 
 After having exhorted the people to sanctify the 
 Lord of Hosts himself, and to let him be their fear, 
 and to let him be their dread, the prophet Isaiah pro- 
 ceeds to say, ver. 14 : " And he (that is, the Lord of 
 Hosts) shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of 
 stumbling, and a rock of offence, to both the houses 
 of Israel ; for a gin, and for a snare, to the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem." Here it is clearly stated, that the Lord 
 of Hosts himself shall be for a stumbling stone, and 
 a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel ; which 
 was precisely the case : for though he was peculiarly 
 their God, and they his people, having been first made 
 a nation by him, and afterwards preserved and deliver-
 
 193 
 
 ed by such stupendous displays of his miraculous 
 power, and placed under his peculiar government, with 
 laws given to them by himself; yet, as their history 
 sufficiently shews, he was for a stumbling stone and 
 rock of offence to them, as they were continually of- 
 fending against him by their repeated acts of dis- 
 obedience and rebellion, and stumbling against, and 
 falling by, his laws, when theyforsook him, and addict- 
 ed themselves to the service of other Gods. This 
 happened as to both the houses of Israel, as well to 
 those tribes which retained their allegiance to the 
 family of David, as to those which revolted from them ; 
 both having frequently renounced their subjection to 
 the Most High, and fallen into the most deplorable 
 idolatry. But this only proves that the Lord of Hosts 
 was to be for a stumbling stone and a rock of offence 
 to both houses of Israel : there is not a word in 
 allusion to Christ in the whole passage. What proof 
 is there then, that he was the person here called the 
 Lord of Hosts ? You say, that we know that Jesus 
 Christ was to the Jews a stumbling block. Granted : 
 but might there not have been, as has been very judi- 
 ciously remarked, more stumbling blocks or stumbling 
 stones to the Jews than one ? and might not the same 
 language have been applied to God, and to Christ, in 
 very different senses, and in regard to very different 
 events ? Supposing the Lord of Hosts to have been a 
 stumbling block, and Jesus Christ also to have been 
 

 
 194 
 
 a stumbling block, to this rebellious and gainsaying 
 people, would it be more rational to proceed at once 
 to the conclusion, Therefore Christ is the Lord of 
 Hosts ? than to syllogize in a similar manner : Jupi- 
 ter is a planet, and the earth is a planet, therefore the 
 earth is Jupiter ? How extraordinary it is, that this 
 admirable reasoning should be rejected in astronomy, 
 when it is adopted so generally, and so usefully, in 
 religious controversy ! 
 
 I shall prove with the greatest facility, from the 
 Scriptures themselves, that the Jews had more stum- 
 bling blocks, or stumbling stones, than one. In 
 Rom. ix. 31, 32, we have these words : " But Israel, 
 which followed after the law of righteousness, hath 
 not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? 
 Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were 
 by the works of the law : for they stumbled at that 
 stumbling stone," meaning the law. And thus the 
 law appears to have been one stumbling stone; which 
 also explains that the Lord of Hosts might figura- 
 tively be said to have been a stumbling stone to them 
 by, or through, his law which he had given to them, 
 and which they had stumbled at, and disobeyed. In 
 Rev. ii. 14, are these words : " But I have a few things 
 against thee, because thou h'ast there them that hold 
 the doctrine of "Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a 
 stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat 
 things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornica-
 
 195 
 
 tion." Here we find that the children of Israel had 
 another stumbling block. How many more they may 
 have had, it is not material to ascertain. 
 
 Let us proceed in the next place to inquire, how 
 far the apostles apply, as you inform me they do, to 
 Jesus Christ, what Isaiah says : " Sanctify the Lord 
 of Hosts, and he shall be a stumbling block to the 
 house of Israel." It so happens, that neither of the 
 apostles quotes at all the words " sanctify the Lord 
 of Hosts." The apostle Paul, after having stated, 
 Rom. ix. 31, 32, (which I have just cited,) that the 
 Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone of the law, 
 continues, ver. 33 : " As it is written, Behold, I lay 
 in Zion a stumbling stone, and rock of offence ; and 
 whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." 
 By these additional words, which are not to be found 
 in Isaiah viii. 13, 14, the apostle, if he designed to 
 represent Christ as the stumbling stone that was laid, 
 equally designed to represent God, or the Lord of 
 Hosts, to have been the person who laid it, and con- 
 sequently to have been different from the stone that 
 was laid by him. 
 
 The apostle Peter, 1st Epist. ii. 6, says: " Where- 
 fore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I 
 lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious ; and 
 he that believeth on him shall not be confounded:" 
 which appears to be a quotation not from Isaiah viii. 
 14^ but rather from Isaiah xxviii. 16, which is in these 
 words : " Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold,
 
 196 
 
 I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, 
 a precious corner stone, elect, precious, a sure foun- 
 dation. He that believeth shall not make haste." 
 The apostle then says, in his own person, to the dis- 
 ciples to whom his epistle was addressed; "Unto you 
 therefore which believe, he is precious ; but unto 
 them which be disobedient, the stone which the 
 builders disallowed, is become the chief stone of the 
 corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, 
 even to them which stumble at the word, being dis- 
 obedient ; whereunto they were appointed." Consi- 
 dering Christ to be here meant, nothing more follows 
 from it, than this: Isaiah had said that the Lord of 
 Hosts should be for a stone of stumbling, and a rock 
 of offence, to both houses of Israel ; and the apostle 
 Peter says, that Christ had become a stone of stum- 
 bling, and a rock of offence ; and each might have 
 been a stone of stumbling to the Jews, without being 
 one and the same: that is, the one under the old dis- 
 pensation, and the other under the new ; the one by 
 the law which he had given, and the other by the 
 gospel which he had preached to them : or the one, 
 because they rejected him as their God, and went and 
 served other Gods; and the other, because they reject- 
 ed him also as their Messiah, and chose to continue 
 under that inferior and burdensome dispensation, 
 from which it was the object of his mission, and the 
 design of his heavenly Father, to relieve them. Nei- 
 ther the prophet nor the apostles have intimated that
 
 197 
 
 they were the same. The latter indeed say nothing 
 about the Lord of Hosts, upon this occasion. This 
 therefore supplies no proof of their identity. In fact, 
 it is one of the most common occurrences in all writ- 
 ings sacred and profane, where one eminent person 
 is mentioned, who in some points resembled another 
 who preceded him, or who performed similar actions, 
 or met with similar treatment, in giving an account, 
 or writing the history, of the latter, to allude to the 
 former in words more or less express or direct, with- 
 out the slightest intention to insinuate that they were 
 the same, any more than the apostles do, in the pas- 
 sage in question : and all that can be inferred from 
 them is, that the Lord of Hosts was a stumbling stone 
 to the Jews, and that Christ also was a stumbling 
 stone to them. To conclude my remarks upon this 
 subject, which I am afraid have already extended to an 
 inconvenient length, I shall merely observe, that as we 
 are carefully to avoid placing stumbling blocks in the 
 way of others, I hope we shall also take some care, not 
 unnecessarily to create any for ourselves. 
 
 You further say, " that as to the superiority of him 
 that sancU&es, it is proclaimed by Trinitarians, that 
 this was the glory of Jesus Christ, that he voluntarily 
 condescended to the condition of a servant ; that in 
 proportion as he stooped, and placed himself in an in- 
 ferior condition, the Father, who never thus stooped, 
 must be superior; that this also sufficiently accounts 
 for the Saviour's saying, 'The Father is greater than I.'
 
 198 
 
 But this, you tell me, proves nothing against his ori- 
 ginal dignity; for that the same person may be my 
 inferior in one relation, and my superior, or equal, in 
 another; that when I urge the inferiority of Christ, 
 his submission, &c. you wonder that I do not recol- 
 lect, that those who are called orthodox, are so far 
 from denying this, that they derive all their hope of 
 salvation from the merit of this voluntary submission, 
 and obedience: but that you contend, that the Scrip- 
 tures very distinctly declare Christ to have possessed 
 original glory, which he voluntarily laid aside; and that 
 after having passed through a state of humiliation, he 
 received a new and peculiar glory, in the new nature he 
 had assumed, for which you quote Philipp. ii." 
 
 I perfectly agree with you, my dear Sir, that Christ 
 voluntarily condescended to the condition of a servant 
 (or rather slave, as it is iri the original) ; but deny 
 that it is because he stooped, and placed himself in 
 an inferior condition, that the Father, who never thus 
 stooped, must be superior ; which must be the pro- 
 position to answer your purpose. I deny also, that 
 this accounts for the Saviour's saying, " The Father is 
 greater than I." The whole of this proceeds upon 
 the assumption, without any kind of evidence, that 
 our Lord was originally equal to the Father, and pos- 
 sessed of equal power and glory; and that from this 
 transcendently high station he condescended to the 
 condition of a slave, But where are your proofs of 
 this ? Our blessed Lord himself never says so, nor
 
 199 
 
 do any of his apostles. Though Trinitarians may 
 proclaim it, those who are not Trinitarians will not 
 believe it, unless it is substantiated by evidence. And 
 supposing that it would, if clearly and satisfactorily 
 proved, account for our Lord's saying " My Father 
 is greater than I," against the obvious and plain mean- 
 ing of the words themselves, until it is so proved, 
 it amounts to nothing, and can account for nothing. 
 Now have you, or has any Trinitarian, been able to 
 find any such evidence ? If you have, how easy would 
 it be to produce it ! 
 
 I admit that these words do not furnish any direct 
 proof against any original dignity which our Lord 
 might before have had, and did not then possess, sup- 
 posing such to have been the case. This, however, 
 being the very point in question, cannot be taken for 
 granted; and there is no proof in favour of it. As far 
 as the words themselves go, they shew that our Lord 
 was then inferior to the Father ; and no antecedent or 
 original dignity at all, much less any equal to that of 
 the Father, is mentioned, or so much as alluded to. 
 
 Moreover, whatever the words " The Father is 
 greater than I" may not prove, they certainly do prove 
 that, at the time they were spoken, the Father was 
 greater than our Saviour, taking him as he then was. 
 If, therefore, he was then a person, consisting, as the 
 Trinitarians say, of two natures inseparably united in 
 him, the one a divine nature, equal to that of the 
 Father, and the other a human nature, which, how-
 
 200 
 
 ever inferior, must be allowed to have been something, 
 this, being added to that which was equal to the Fa- 
 ther, must have made him even something more than 
 the Father: and yet, according to this hypothesis, 
 unless our Lord's own words are rejected, the Father 
 must have been greater than he, who was not only 
 equal to, but something more than, himself than 
 which nothing can be more inconsistent : and it must 
 be remembered, that he says generally, and abso" 
 lutely, " The Father is greater than I," speaking of 
 himself wholly, and entirely, and not by parts and 
 parcels, a mode of speaking of himself which he has 
 never been shewn to have adopted. .Though confess* 
 edly inferior then, at this time, that he was ever before, 
 in possession of original, and equal dignity, remains 
 to be proved. Every presumption is against it ; and 
 the proof, if any could be produced, would lie entirely 
 upon you. It would be highly unreasonable to expect 
 me, or any other person, to take for granted one of 
 the most material things in dispute between us. 
 
 I admit that the same person may be an inferior 
 in one relation, and a superior in another: but still, 
 particularly as he has pronounced himself to be inferior 
 without any reservation or limitation whatever, you 
 have the one thing needful to establish ; namely, that 
 he is, or ever was, in any relation, equal to the Fa* 
 ther. 
 
 The merit of his voluntary submission and obedi- 
 ence was undoubtedly great, and deserving of all that
 
 201 
 
 the sacred writers have said of it ; but they do not in- 
 form us that it was the submission and obedience of 
 one equal to him whom he submitted to and obeyed. 
 Whatever therefore they who call themselves orthodox 
 may fancy it is necessary to amount to for their salva- 
 tion, proves nothing. I think they are wrong in this 
 too, and that if it were requisite to enter upon it in 
 this place, it could be very satisfactorily proved that 
 they are. 
 
 Where, my good friend, do the Scriptures say that 
 our blessed Lord had original glory equal to that of 
 the Father which is necessary to make out your case 
 or any glory, that was not derived from that only ori- 
 ginal and underived Being, the Father and Author of 
 all ? Where do they distinctly declare Christ, as you 
 have stated, to have possessed original glory ? The 
 passage in the 2d chapter of the Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians, which you cite, and which I shall presently con- 
 sider, contains nothing like it. Our Lord himself, in- 
 stead of claiming original or underived glory, is con- 
 tinually representing himself as owing to, and deriving 
 from, the Father, all the powers, privileges, and pre- 
 rogatives he possessed ; saying expressly, that he could 
 do nothing of himself ; that it was the Father who had 
 committed all judgement to him, that men might ho- 
 nour him ; that it was the Father who had given to him 
 to have life in himself, and who had given to him au- 
 thority to execute judgement ; that he sought not his 
 own will, but the will of his Father who had sent him :
 
 202 
 
 John v. 19, 22, 26, 27, 30. That his doctrine 
 was not his own, but his that sent him: John vii. 16. 
 That his Father who had sent him had given him a 
 commandment what he should say, and what he should 
 speak : John xii. 49. That the Father that dwelt in 
 him, he did the works: John xiv. 10. Where he 
 ever speaks of original or underived glory, still less of 
 glory equal to that of his Father, I am utterly unable 
 to discover. 
 
 Perhaps you may consider the 17th chapter of St. 
 John, ver. 5, as containing something like it ; where 
 our Lord, praying to his Father, says : " And now, 
 O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with 
 the glory which I had with thee (TTU^OI (rot) before the 
 world was : " which some possibly may think proves 
 that he had original glory, and that he was in the ac- 
 tual possession of it before the world was. But he 
 afterwards shews in the very same chapter, ver. 22, 
 that his glory, whatever the nature of it was, had been 
 given to him by his Father; and that the very same 
 glory which had been given to him, he had given to 
 his disciples, probably the glory of promulgating the 
 Gospel, the glad tidings of life and immortality, to 
 the world. Nothing, I am persuaded, can be proved, 
 even as to our Lord's preexistence, from the words 
 "The glory which I had with thee, before the world 
 was ;" the Greek word Tra^a, with the dative case, 
 not always having a local, but sometimes a personal 
 signification, when it denotes in the sight, or estima-
 
 203 
 
 lion, of; as in 2 Pet. iii. 8: "One day is with the 
 Lord (ira^a KvpiM, that is, in the sight, or estima- 
 tion, of the Lord) as a thousand years ;" which likewise 
 frequently does not represent the thing as actually 
 present, or in possession; but merely as foreseen, a? 
 in John viii. 56, where our Lord says : " Your Father 
 Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was 
 glad:" that is, he foresaw it, which is analogous to 
 another interpretation, which the words will very well 
 bear; namely, that having it with God, means having 
 it in the design, purpose, or counsel, of God, to whom 
 the past, present, and future, are always present, 
 f{ who calleth those things which be not, as though 
 they were;" Rom. iv. 17: having told Abraham that 
 he had made him the father of many nations, when 
 as yet he had but one child, and that not the child of 
 promise: Gen. xvii. 5. Such expressions, therefore, 
 cannot be relied upon, as denoting that the things 
 mentioned had actual existence at the time specified. 
 Other instances of it may easily be given from the 
 Scriptures. Thus, for example, our Lord himself is 
 called (Rev. xiii. 8) (( the larnb that was slain before 
 the foundation of the world ;" when he could only 
 have been so in the view and design of the Supreme 
 Being, with whom the thing was equally present as 
 if it had been actually accomplished. So the dead, 
 who will not live again till the future resurrection, are 
 stated by our Lord as being all living to God : Luke 
 xx. 38. So likewise in this very chapter of St. John
 
 204 
 
 (ver. 12), Judas is said to be destroyed 
 
 though he was then living, and actually bargaining 
 
 with the priests and rulers to betray his Master. 
 
 I am much obliged to you for having quoted the 
 passage in the 2d chapter of the Epistle to the Phi- 
 lippians, because we shall have the apostle Paul's ac- 
 count of the state from which our blessed Lord stoop- 
 ed, as you say, when he took upon him the form of 
 a slave, which will furnish us with an opportunity of 
 ascertaining whether it was from a state of original 
 underived glory, equal to that of the Father, or some- 
 thing differing from it toto coelo ; and because I am 
 much mistaken if this celebrated passage, so often 
 cited in favour of the Trinitarian hypothesis, will not, 
 when it has been carefully examined, turn out, like 
 so many others, to be decidedly hostile to it. 
 
 To render it available for Trinitarian purposes, we 
 must inflexibly adhere to the common version; for 
 the Greek text shews us at the first glance, that it will 
 admit of other interpretations, at least equal, and, as 
 I trust I shall be able to prove to you, on many ac- 
 counts much superior, to those adopted in this version. 
 I must premise, however, as I have'already done upon 
 other occasions, that to amount to a proof of such a 
 doctrine as that of the Trinity, or indeed of any doc- 
 trine, it must not only admit of, but require, the 
 translation resorted to in the common version. If it 
 does not, it is no proof one way or the other ; which 
 is all that is incumbent upon me to shew : for to prove
 
 205 
 
 the doctrine of the divine unity I need it not, there 
 being numerous proofs of that doctrine, most full 
 and clear and conclusive, without in the least strain- 
 ing any of the words in which it is expressed, but 
 taking them all in their obvious and usual meanings. 
 Many of these you will find in the preceding parts of 
 this letter. I shall now offer to your consideration 
 some of the interpretations which this celebrated 
 passage will admit of, at least equally well with those 
 in the common version. 
 
 It was the apostle's design, in this chapter of his 
 Epistle, to recommend humility to his Philippian bre- 
 thren, by that bright example of it which had been ex- 
 hibited by the Lord Jesus ; for which purpose he says to 
 them, ver. 3, 4 : " Let nothing be done through strife 
 or vain -glory ; but in lowliness of mind, esteeming 
 others better than yourselves. Look not every man 
 on his own things, but every man also on the things 
 of others." Then comes the passage in question, ver. 
 5 11 : "Let this mind be in you, which was also 
 in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the form of a God," 
 (for thus, being 0gcg- without the article, it may, ac~ 
 cording to the strictest construction of the Greek and 
 English languages, be equally well rendered, as God; 
 and it is only from a consideration of the context, of 
 the general scope and design of the writer, and of the 
 application of the word in other places, that it can be 
 determined which ought to be adopted in preference,) 
 " thought it not robbery to be equal" (supposing the
 
 206 
 
 common version to be correct in this respect) "to a 
 God" (sov, again without the article) : "but emptied 
 himself" (meaning evidently of this equality to a God; 
 the words in the common version, " made himself of 
 no reputation," having nothing better to rest upon 
 than the fancy of the translator), " taking upon him 
 the form of a slave, and was" (for so ysvcusvog may 
 be rendered, as well as 'was made'} "in the likeness 
 of men," or other men, or common men. See Judges 
 xvi. 7, 11, 17; where it is so rendered, and very pro- 
 perly, even in the common version ; though the word 
 other, or another, is not in the original, where we see 
 Sampson divesting, or emptying, himself of his mira- 
 culous powers, by revealing the secret upon which 
 they depended, to a perfidious woman, and suffering 
 himself to be deprived of his hair, after having before 
 told her, by way of putting her off, that if he were to 
 be bound with seven green withs, he should be weak, 
 and be as a man, (rendered very properly, according 
 to its real meaning, as another man}) and that if he 
 was bound with new ropes, he should be weak, and 
 be as a man (meaning, as it is rendered, as another 
 man). See also Psal. Ixxxii. 6 : " And being found in 
 external appearance" (which is the meaning of a-y^pa, 
 as well as fashion, the latter indeed having nearly 
 the same meaning) <c as another man;" (that u>g ccv- 
 6pw7ro may be so rendered, see above) "he humbled 
 himself and became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross ; wherefore God " (here the Father
 
 207 
 
 is first introduced, and he is at once called o Ssoc, 
 God with the article) " also hath highly exalted him ; 
 and given him a name, which is above every name, 
 that in the name (sv ry ovopmt) of Jesus every knee 
 should bow, of beings in heaven, and earth, and un- 
 der the earth, and that every tongue should confess, 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory" not of him- 
 self, though at the time the apostle was writing he 
 was in his highest state of exaltation, nor of the Holy 
 Spirit ; but "of God the FATHER." 
 
 According to this translation, the 6th, 7th, and 8th 
 verses, which are the most material, will run thus ; 
 " Who, being in the form of a God, thought it not 
 robbery to be equal to a God ; but emptied himself, 
 taking upon him the form of a slave, and was in the 
 likeness of other men ; and being found in external 
 appearance like another man, he humbled himself, 
 and became obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross." 
 
 The rendering of fog-, without the article, a God, 
 in the inferior sense of it, which is here adopted, har- 
 monizes completely with our Lord's intimation in the 
 10th chapter of St. John, that it might be applied 
 to him in this sense ; and in no part of Scripture is 
 it stated that it may be applied to him in any other 
 sense. There our Lord, in his discourse with the 
 Jews, intimates to them, that he should have been 
 justified in making himself a God, in the sense in 
 which that term was applied to those to whom the
 
 208 
 
 word of God came, that is the prophets. Here the 
 apostle, probably with a view to the same discourse, 
 states our Lord's being in the form of a God, and that 
 he thought it not robbery to be equal to a God, which 
 it unquestionably would not have been, even sup- 
 posing the words " thought it not robbery to be 
 equal to" exhibit a correct representation of the mean- 
 ing of the original. 
 
 Now what is meant by his being in the form, or 
 appearance, of a God, according to his own interpre- 
 tation of the term used in its inferior sense ; but that 
 he was in the form, or appearance, or resemblance, of 
 one of those prophets, or divine messengers of old, to 
 whom the word of God came, performing, as they 
 did, miracles, and signs, and wonders, which consti- 
 tuted the strongest point of resemblance between them, 
 having in fact wrought a very signal miracle, that of 
 giving sight to a man who had been born blind, but 
 just before he signified his being entitled to the ap- 
 pellation of a God in this inferior sense ? Being then 
 actually in the form of a God, that is of a prophet, 
 manifested by his performing miracles like a prophet, 
 he thought it not robbery to be equal to a God, that 
 is, a prophet endued with miraculous powers ; which 
 we can have no difficulty in believing. This brings 
 us to the consideration of the state from which the 
 apostle appears to have considered him as having 
 stooped : and it is obvious, that the state from which 
 the apostle considered him to have stooped, was that
 
 209 
 
 which he had just described, namely, that of a pro- 
 phet, or divine messenger; and that he thus stooped, 
 by emptying himself of, or laying aside, his miracu- 
 lous powers, and exercising none of them for his own 
 defence or deliverance. 
 
 But to this it may justly be objected, and the ob- 
 jection will apply equally, whether the words be trans- 
 lated, " thought it not robbery to be equal to * God,' or 
 'a God';" that it was the apostle's design upon this oc-_ 
 casion to hold up our Lord as a perfect pattern of hu- 
 mility for the imitation of his Philippian friends ; and 
 yet upon this construction, the very first proof he re- 
 presents him as giving of it, is his thinking it not 
 robbery to be equal to God or a God. Considering 
 him to have been so, and theie is no doubt that he 
 was so in the latter sense, his making such a claim 
 himself, though a just one, would have been no proof 
 of humility, and consequently could never have found 
 any place in an enumeration of what he thought, said, 
 and did, by way of shewing his humility as an ex- 
 ample to others. Had it been given as what the 
 apostle thought of him, or represented him to be, 
 as his being in the form of God or a God is, just 
 before, the case would have been different ; but the 
 apostle, according to the common version, is sup- 
 posed to produce it as the first proof of his humility, 
 that he himself thought it not robbery to be equal 
 with God. We must consequently give up the ren- 
 dering of .that version in this respect likewise, for 
 
 p
 
 210 
 
 some more consistent meaning, which the original 
 will admit of. I prefer therefore translating the word, 
 ft7ray/zcy, a prey, as has been done by numerous 
 eminent critics both Trinitarian and Antitrinitarian, 
 meaning a thing obtained by his own power or talent, 
 and to be retained and used as his own property, 
 and for his own benefit. I prefer also translating the 
 Word uroc, like to, an interpretation which it will as 
 well admit of as that of equal with. See Dr. Whit- 
 by, Archbishop Newcome, and Schleusner in loc. 
 The passage may then be translated, " Who being in 
 the form, or appearance" (for such is the meaning 
 of the word //oo<p>7, as may be seen in the very next 
 verse,) " of a God," (which he was, by performing 
 miracles, as they had done to whom the word of God 
 eame, and who were called Gods,) " did not esteem 
 it a prey, to be like to a God ; but emptied, or divest- 
 ed himself of it, taking upon him the form of a slave, 
 and was in the likeness of other men ; and being found 
 in external appearance like another man, humbled 
 himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross." 
 
 This translation is perfectly consistent in every part. 
 It exhibits our Lord throughout as a perfect pattern 
 of humility. It accords perfectly with his own re- 
 presentation of himself in other places. It gives us 
 the antithesis where we should expect it, and where 
 the word but is inserted to introduce it; namely, that 
 he did not esteem it a prey to be like to a God ; but
 
 211 
 
 on the contrary emptied himself of it, that is of this 
 likeness to a God, which he did by abstaining from 
 the performance of all miracles when brought before 
 the superior powers of the country, who were to de- 
 termine upon his life or death, and the manner in 
 which the latter was to take place. He took upon 
 him the form, or appearance [u6p$hp again] of a 
 slave, when he suffered himself to be bound as a slave, 
 to be condemned as a slave to a servile death, namely 
 that of crucifixion, to bear his cross as a slave, and to 
 be crucified as a slave. By his abstinence from work- 
 ing miracles when before the public tribunals of his 
 country, he was like another man, or like a common 
 person ; and was found in fashion, or in external ap- 
 pearance, like another man, or a common person, and 
 not like a prophet, or a God, according to Jewish 
 phraseology, exercising the power of working miracles. 
 So he was found by the priests in the council, before 
 whom he performed no miracle : so he was found 
 by Pilate ; and so was he found by Herod, who was at 
 first rejoiced to see him, expecting to have beheld some 
 miracle wrought by him ; but being disappointed, and 
 finding him in fashion, or appearance, like any other 
 common person, despised him, and with his men of 
 war set him at naught, and sent him back to Pilate. 
 
 All this our blessed Lord voluntarily submitted 
 himself to, divesting himself of the form or appear- 
 ance of a God, or divine messenger, by wholly abs- 
 taining from the exercise of any miraculous powers 
 
 p 2
 
 212 
 
 upon these occasions; humbling himself, and be" 
 coming obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross ; because he knew that it was his duty, being 
 according to the wise designs' and purposes of his hea- 
 venly Father. That it was voluntary, he himself in- 
 timates, Matt. xxvi. 5&, saying to one of his disciples, 
 who in his zeal to serve him had availed himself of 
 one of the weapons of temporal warfare ; " Thinkest 
 thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he 
 shall presently give me more than twelve legions of 
 angels?" By which also he informs us in what manner 
 he might have delivered himself in this distressing 
 hour, had it been consistent with his Father's will, and 
 his own ideas of duty: not by exercising the powers 
 of any supposed superhuman nature, not by breaking 
 forth upon his enemies with all the glories and splen- 
 dors of the supposed divine Logos, and consuming 
 them in a moment; not by displaying any one power of 
 his oivn;^but by praying to the Father y by praying, 
 as an inferior to a superior being, for that necessary 
 assistance which he stood so much irr need of, to 
 rescue him from a situation of the utmost distress and 
 danger, out of which he was utterly unable to deliver 
 himself by any power of his own. 
 
 From what state then, under all the circumstances, 
 can we suppose the apostle to have considered our 
 Lord as having stooped ? Was it from a state of ori- 
 ginal glory, equal to that of the Father in a pre- ex- 
 istent state, as you in common with other Trinitarians
 
 213 
 
 seem to suppose ? There is not a single expression in 
 the whole passage that speaks of, or has any allusion 
 *o, a pre-existent state. The whole appears to relate 
 to the voluntary humiliation of our Lord at the time 
 he delivered himself up to his enemies. This will 
 account for every tittle of what the apostle says, and 
 will account for it in a plain and rational manner. 
 But what will be the consequence of supposing, with- 
 out any authority from the apostle's account of the 
 matter, that the voluntary humiliation of our Lord 
 was a voluntary humiliation of himself when in a pre- 
 existent state of glory equal to that of the Father ? 
 It will unavoidably follow, that Christ Jesus was in 
 a pre-existent state of glory; for the apostle speaks of 
 Christ Jesus throughout : but it was never pretended 
 by any one that Jesus was ever in a pre-existent state 
 of glory, whatever may have been the case with the 
 supposed divine Logos. It will follow also as the 
 divine nature was the only part of him then in ex- 
 istence, and was the only part of him that could be 
 humbled by becoming a man that it was the divine 
 nature that emptied himself, taking upon him the form 
 of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men; that 
 it was the divine nature who is supposed by the 
 Trinitarians to have created, and to uphold and govern 
 the universe: that was found in fashion as a man ; 
 that humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
 death, even the death of the cross, that is, actually 
 died; that it was the divine nature, which could not
 
 214 
 
 possibly be raised higher than it was before, that God 
 (0 so$, God with the article) highly exalted, and gave 
 him a name above every name : for the apostle pro- 
 ceeds in his enumeration of all the particulars as he 
 had begun, applying the whole to the same being, or 
 nature, he began with; not making any distinction, 
 as a person who had heard of, and believed in, the 
 two natures would naturally have done between the 
 one nature and the other, and shewing what had been 
 done by the one and what by the other. But the 
 words of the apostle give no countenance to the hy- 
 pothesis from which all these sad consequences flow. 
 He hints at no pre-existent state, alludes to no super- 
 human nature : he confines every thing that he enu>- 
 merates to Jesus Christ, which the supposed divine 
 nature could not have been in a pre-existent state ; 
 and refers back to no period of time antecedent to 
 that of his taking upon himself the servile character, 
 and submitting to be put to death by sinful men, as 
 had been appointed concerning him in the councils of 
 his Father. ->-#a 
 
 Some, as I have already hinted, translate the 6th 
 verse: "Who being in the form of God, did not esr 
 teem it a prey to be like God." The editors of the 
 improved version of the New Testament render it : 
 "Who being in the form of God, did not esteem 
 as a prey this resemblance of God." Others : " Who 
 being in the form of God, thought it not a prey to be 
 Q,$ (jod." Others again : " Who being in the form of
 
 215 
 
 Ijrod, thought it not a prey to be equal to God.'* And 
 others : " Who being in the form of God, thought it 
 not robbery to be like God, or to be as God." The 
 last, however, labours under the defect of the common 
 version in this respect ; that the first of a long enu- 
 meration of things stated to have been thought, and 
 done, by Christ himself in proof of his humility, is 
 what is no proof of humility at all. But they all shew 
 that the passage cannot be used to prove the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. 
 
 That the words /era Qs a may be rendered * like God,* 
 or * as God,' may be proved by numerous instances 
 in which the word /era is used in this sense. I shall 
 select two, out of a great number, from the Septuagint 
 translation of the Book of Job. The first is Job xi. 
 12 : " For vain man would be wise, though man be 
 born, t<r<x tvw sp^ju/T*?, like a wild ass's colt." The se- 
 cond is Job xl. 15 : " Behold now behemoth, which 
 I made with thee ; He eateth grass, /era, as an ox." 
 It has been pretended* that the idea actually express- 
 ed in the former is more than mere resemblance ; 
 namely, that man is born on an equality with a wild 
 ass's colt. contend, that the idea either expressed 
 or understood does not amount even to as much as 
 mere resemblance, but only to resemblance in one 
 particular point, and has nothing to do with equality, 
 nor even with the exact degree of resemblance. The 
 writer, as is obvious, did not mean to convey to us 
 
 *ByMr.Wardlaw.
 
 2 16 
 
 the notable discovery, that man is born equally high 
 in the scale of being with a wild ass's colt, as the Tri- 
 nitarians wish us to understand .era in the passage in 
 question means that our Lord stood in, with regard 
 to the Father; nor, on the other hand, that he was 
 born equally low in the scale of being with a wild ass's 
 colt ; neither of which would be true : but solely, that 
 they resembled each other in being both born, or in 
 being born weak, and to a certain extent feeble and 
 helpless ; and in that respect this vain creature man,, 
 so proud of his reason, of his powers and prerogatives, 
 was originally brought forth like a very mean and de- 
 spised animal. That resemblance in a single instance, 
 and not equality, was in the writer's view, will be ob- 
 vious, when it is considered, that in some respects the 
 colt when born is superior to the man ; namely, in 
 having the complete use of his limbs, and being able 
 to walk and run immediately; and in others the 
 man is greatly superior to the colt, as bringing into 
 the world those mental powers which require only to 
 be developed and exercised, to enable him to subdue 
 and govern the rest of the animal creation. The lat- 
 ter text which I have produced confirms this ; nothing 
 being more clear than that the word /era, as applied to 
 the behemoth and the ox, does not relate to the quan- 
 tity of grass eaten by the one and the other, or to their 
 equality in any one instance ; but merely to their re- 
 semblance in this, that both eat grass. In every other 
 respect, whether the behemoth of Job be the ele~
 
 pliant or the hippopotamus, they most widely diffe,r 
 from each other, and there is nothing like equality 
 between them, both these creatures being greatly su- 
 perior in strength, and differing widely in their ap-: 
 pearance and habits from the ox ; sometimes perhaps 
 eating, especially the hippopotamus, five times as much 
 grass as an ox ; resembling him, however, only in eat- 
 ing grass, whether more or less than he does. I should 
 think that none would relish translating the word /era 
 here, as the common version does in Philipp. ii. 0, 
 *' Behold, he eateth grass equal with an ox." 
 
 The verb yytoy-oti, in this celebrated passage, has 
 also been translated by some in the sense of imaginor, 
 who accordingly render cv% apKaypw viyvia-oiio TO sivcti 
 t<roi iw, " did not imagine, or think of, a robbery, 
 that is, to be equal to God ;" meaning, that it would 
 have been a robbery to have done so. And Novatian, 
 one of the Latin fathers, who flourished about the 
 middle of the third century, and was never consider-, 
 ed to be behind any of his contemporaries on the sub- 
 ject of the Trinity, seems to have annexed some such 
 meaning to the corresponding Latin words, arbitratus 
 est> by which j^o-arc is rendered into that language; 
 and never could have understood them in the sense 
 of our modern translators, but in a sense the very 
 opposite. His words are "Hie ergo, quamvis esset 
 in forma Dei, noil est rapinam arbitratus, sequalem 
 se Deo esse. Quamvis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum 
 esse meminisset., nunquam se Deo Patri, aut compa-.
 
 218 
 
 ravit, aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre, et hoc 
 ipsum quod est, habere se quia Pater dedisset." Novat. 
 cap. xxii. p. 84. "He therefore, although he was in 
 the form of God, did not imagine, think of, or deter- 
 mine upon, the prey, rapine, or robbery, to be equal 
 to God. For though he knew that he was God of 
 God the Father, he never compared himself with God 
 the Father, being mindful that he was of the Father, 
 and that he had what the Father gave him." Let any 
 one who is not satisfied with any of the meanings here 
 given to arbitrates est, substitute those of the com- 
 mon version, " thought it not/' and try to make this 
 consistent with the words which follow them. The 
 entire scope and design of Novatian is to represent 
 the Son to be inferior to the Father, and consequent- 
 ly he could not possibly have understood the words in 
 question in the same sense as the Trinitarians of the 
 present day do. If any doubt remained as to the opi- 
 nion of this father, it would be completely removed 
 by referring to his 27th chapter, p. 102; where he 
 says of Christ : " Dum ergo accipit sanctificationem 
 a Patre, minor Patre est." " Since therefore he re- 
 ceives sanctification from the Father, he is less than 
 the Father." 
 
 Here we have the remarkable instance of a zealous 
 Trinitarian father at this early period, when the 
 doctrine of the Trinity had not advanced as far as it 
 has since, and did not comprise the equality of the 
 three persons who were then imagined to have com-
 
 219 
 
 posed it, quoting this very passage, to prove the in- 
 feriority of the Son to the Father, which more modern 
 Trinitarians, after subsequent councils had voted him 
 equal, have brought forward in proof of his equality. 
 
 It is by no means necessary to rest the proof of 
 this passage having been understood in ancient times 
 in a sense quite opposite to that in which it is under- 
 stood by modern Trinitarians upon the authority of 
 Novatian only, others having expressed themselves in 
 such a manner as to shew that they entertained simi- 
 lar ideas of its meaning. Thus Origen in his com- 
 mentary upon St. John says : " We may presume to 
 affirm, that the goodness of Christ appeared greater, 
 and more divine, and truly after the image of his Fa- 
 ther, when he humbled himself unto death even the 
 death of the cross ; y si aTrotypov r/yyj(rccTC> TO sivoct icroc 
 <&sy, than if he had thought of the robbery of being 
 equal to God, or had thought it a prey to be equal to, 
 or like God, and would not have become a servant for 
 the salvation of the world." Com. in. Job. edit. 
 Huetii, p. 34. Apply the translation of modern Tri- 
 nitarians to the words apTrcc/^cv jjy^craTo, and the rea- 
 soning of Origen will be entirely destroyed ; for then 
 it will stand, " The goodness of Christ appeared 
 greater and more divine, and truly" after the image of 
 his Father, when he humbled himself and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, than 
 if he had thought it a robbery to be equal to God, 
 and would not have become a servant." It is obvious,
 
 220 
 
 that his thinking it a robbery, that is criminal, to be 
 equal to God, though possessed of divine and god- 
 like powers, which denoted humility of mind, would 
 have warranted the conclusion, that he would with 
 like humility have readily become a servant for the 
 salvation of mankind ; instead of refusing to do it, as 
 might have been expected, had he been high-minded, 
 and thought of the robbery of being equal to God, 
 or thought it a prey obtained by his own power, and 
 to be retained and used for his own benefit and ag- 
 grandisement. But considering Origen to. have tin? 
 derstood this part of the Epistle to the Philippians in 
 either of the senses I have mentioned, the whole of 
 the passage just quoted from him will be consistent, 
 and the reasoning just. 
 
 Even Eusebius, in his time, appears to have un- 
 derstood the words in a sense the very reverse of that 
 of the present Trinitarians; as he cites them to prove 
 that our Lord was not o so$? God with the article ; 
 For he says: " ITwg- avrcs r,y sv poffly Qscv, 
 avrc ufv o Qsog', Hug $s 01% apTray^ov >;^craTO TO 
 /era 0, ctVT^s uv o >- : 0f ;" Contr. Marcell. lib. i. c. 18, 
 "How was he in the form of God, or a God, if he 
 was himself in power o so$ (that is God with the 
 article, the God, or the Supreme God) ? How did he 
 not think of the robbery, to be equal to God, or a 
 God, or think it a prey to be equal to or like, or as 
 God, or a God, if he was himself o io$ (that is, God 
 with the article, the God, or the Supreme God)?" If
 
 .221 
 
 you prefer a different translation, it must nevertheless 
 be one that has a contrary meaning to that of the com- 
 mon version. The fact still remains, that he used 
 the words for the opposite purpose, and therefore 
 must have understood them in an opposite sense, to 
 that which the common translation is designed to 
 convey. 
 
 Hilary also understood the words in a sense nearly 
 similar ; namely, in that of non sibi rapiens, his words 
 being " Quia suscipienda erat forma servi, et obediens 
 esset futurus ad mortem, non sibi rapiens, esse se 
 sequalem Deo, ad susceptionem se formae servilis per 
 obedientiam exinanivit." Hit. deTrin. lib. viii. "Be- 
 cause the form of a servant was to be taken, and he 
 was to be obedient unto death, not snatching to him- 
 self that he was equal to God, in order to take upon 
 him the servile form, he through obedience emptied 
 himself." 
 
 It has been well observed, that in times long subse- 
 quent to these Fathers, the Latin phrase rapinam ar- 
 bitratus est still retained the true sense of the Greek 
 ocpTrocypov rj-yqff-ccTo, as may be seen in a form of excom- 
 munication at a council held in the city of Rome in 
 the year 10/6: "Beate Petre, ego (Papa Grego- 
 rius VII.) iron rapinam arbitratus sum, ad sedem tuam 
 ascendere, potiusque volui vitam meam in peregrina- 
 tione finire, &c." Labbe, torn. x. p. 279. Harduin, 
 torn. vi. p. 1481, citat. a Fabritio Biblioth. Gr. 
 torn; xi. p. 593.
 
 222 
 
 The same thing appears in Phoebadius, who says : 
 " Sermo cum in forma Dei esset, non se Deo Patri ad- 
 aequavit, sedformam servi accipiens, &c." " The Word, 
 wlien he was in the form of God, did not equal him- 
 self with God the Father, but taking upon him the 
 form of a servant, &c." Phoebadius cont. Arianos, 
 in Biblioth. PP. torn. iv. p. 305. 
 
 This passage, my dear Sir, I have no doubt you pro- 
 duced upon the faith of the common version, without 
 considering it necessary, as your attention perhaps had 
 not been particularly directed to it, to look any further. 
 But as upon a careful investigation it appears that the 
 original will admit of so many different interpreta- 
 tions, several of them entirely different from, and some 
 diametrically opposite to, that assigned to it in this 
 version, I appeal to your own candour, whether, if it 
 rested here, w r e should not be bound to pronounce the 
 passage to be totally unfit to be quoted as an autho- 
 rity on either side of the question, even if the point 
 in dispute had been of much less consequence ? 
 
 How much less, then, can we be expected to re- 
 ceive it as proof of a doctrine of such high importance 
 as that of the Trinity ? a doctrine which, as I have ob- 
 served more than once, its own advocates admit, if 
 not adored as a mystery, must be exploded as an ab- 
 surdity ; when the interpretation that must be given 
 to it, to qualify it for that office, disturbs the sense, 
 is repugnant to the general scope and design of the 
 writer, and harmonizes with none of our Lord's decla-
 
 223 
 
 rations of himself ? when it not only does not require 
 that interpretation ; but admits of others, which are 
 perfectly rational, perfectly agreeable to the writer's 
 general design and purport, and completely in unison 
 with our lord's own declarations and representations 
 of himself ? What other writings, let me ask, ever re- 
 ceived such treatment at the hands of their transla- 
 tors and commentators, as the Christian Scriptures 
 have experienced from their Trinitarian friends ? Who 
 ever, in any other case, adopted a translation which 
 involved an absurdity, or at the least great difficulty 
 and improbability, when the original would admit of a 
 rational and satisfactory interpretation ? What should 
 we say of any translator or commentator who should 
 venture to treat Homer or Herodotus, Caesar or Vir- 
 gil, or any other writer of antiquity, in a similar man- 
 ner ? 
 
 I consider it incumbent upon me, however, to re- 
 mark, that this has by no means been the case with 
 Trinitarian critics and commentators indiscriminately, 
 who have favoured us with their opinions upon this 
 passage ; many of them having understood the words 
 %, ixuTrotypov Yiyqo-tzTo TO etvoci i<r<x 05, in the same, or 
 a similar sense, as other critics and commentators an- 
 cient and modern have done, " did not esteem it a 
 prey to be like God :" of whom it will suffice at present 
 to mention Erasmus, Grotius, Archbishop Tillotson, 
 Archbishop Newcome, Bishop Bull, and Dr. Wall. 
 
 Before I close this article, permit me, my good
 
 224 
 
 friend, to address two more questions to you. Where 
 does this passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians speak of our Lord's having had original glory ? 
 and where does it say any thing of his having to use 
 your own words -received a new and peculiar glory, 
 in the new nature he had jissumed ? The apostle does 
 not say a syllable about any original glory of our Lord, 
 nor is the word nature to be found in the whole pas- 
 sage, nor any thing like it. Consequently those who 
 are in search of the doctrine of the two natures will be 
 disappointed if they look for it here. 
 
 You state, " that it is in consequence of our Lord's 
 having voluntarily acted as a faithful servant of his 
 Father, that he is now exalted to a delegated kingdom 
 of great glory, which is to be given up to the Father 
 at the last day." But you tell me, " that when I urge 
 that this is to be followed by the Son himself being 
 subject to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24. 28), you reply, 
 Would not this argue, that previously to that day he 
 was not subject, and of course that he is not now ?" 
 "This, however," you add, "would not suit my hy- 
 pothesis, nor indeed yours ; for that you readily grant, 
 that you conceive the Son is now acting as the faith- 
 ful delegate of the Father, who holds in the scheme of 
 redemption the office of guardian of the rights of go- 
 vernment in the universe : that Christ is then to give 
 up the kingdom, by giving in an account of his admi- 
 nistration, shewing that the Son had been faithfully 
 subject to the Father, and that this mode of delegated
 
 225 
 
 government being no longer requisite, the government 
 of God, as God, whether as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, 
 will then be all in all." 
 
 It seems almost superfluous for me to combat a 
 mere implication, which if it were a legitimate one 
 would prove a two-edged sword, striking, as you allow, 
 at the Trinitarian, as well as the Unitarian, hypothe- 
 sis. I shall observe, however, that an implication is 
 merely an inference in the absence of a positive decla- 
 ration or allegation ; that it cannot be fairly made from 
 a few words, contrary to the manifest sense of the whole 
 passage construed together; and that it may always be 
 rebutted by other evidence from the same or other 
 sources. The apostle has taken abundant care that 
 it shall not arise in the present instance ; having not 
 only excepted the Father, out of the things which the 
 Son shall put under him ; but declared also the Father's 
 supremacy, by informing us, that though the Son is 
 represented as putting all things under his feet, it is 
 done not by his own power, but by the power of the 
 Father, who in fact puts all things under him ; for he 
 says: " And when all things shall be subjected to him, 
 then shall the Son also be subject to him, who sub- 
 jected all things to him, that God (o QSQ$) may be all 
 in all." 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. The legitimate inference 
 therefore, which corresponds too with the whole pas- 
 sage, seems to me to arise easily and naturally; namely, 
 that he is at present acting in his kingdom, as a dele- 
 gated k'wg, under the supreme sovereignty of the Fa-
 
 226 
 
 ther, who is subduing all things under him by his (the 
 Father's) almighty power, displayed in him, and by 
 him, as far as is necessary to effect this great design. 
 But when all the glorious and gracious purposes for 
 which his kingdom was established shall have been ac- 
 complished, he shall deliver it up to the Father; and 
 from that time, instead of a king, be merely a subject 
 to the Father, in that very kingdom in which he had 
 previously exercised regal power under him. If any 
 thing further was required to rebut the inference in 
 question, we should be amply furnished with it by St. 
 Matthew, chap. xx. ver. 20 23, where the mother of 
 two of his disciples is represented as approaching him, 
 and desiring him to grant that her two sons might sit, 
 the one on his right hand, and the other on his left, 
 in his kingdom ; and our Lord informs her, " that to 
 sit on his right hand, and on his left, is not his to give; 
 but that it should be given to those for whom it was 
 prepared of his FATHER." Is it possible, in the face 
 of such a declaration as this, to draw an inference, that 
 a son to whom a kingdom is appointed by his Father, 
 who is constantly interposing and subduing all his 
 son's enemies, reserving to himself, however, even the 
 appointment of his principal ministers and officers, of 
 those who are to sit on his right, hand and on his left, 
 is nevertheless, even whilst exercising this subordi- 
 nate and delegated power, not subject to his Father, 
 but equal to him in every respect ? Never was any im- 
 plication more decidedly and completely rebutted than
 
 227 
 
 that in question, and by the highest of all authorities 
 our Lord's own words. 
 
 Your description of the Father, as " holding, in the 
 scheme of redemption, the office of guardian of the 
 rights ofgov eminent in the universe" appears to me 
 to be at least unscriptural, if not perfectly novel ; as I 
 know not where such an appellation is bestowed upon 
 him, or where any such office is mentioned in the sa- 
 cred writings. But without stopping to notice this 
 more particularly, I proceed to the still more remark- 
 able assertion, " that Christ is to give up the kingdom, 
 by giving i?i, an account of his administration." It 
 is rather extraordinary that it should not have occurred 
 to you, that a person having delegated authority giving 
 an account of his administration is one thing, and his 
 giving up his authority another ; that, so far from its 
 being the same thing, it might on the contrary well 
 happen, that, on his account proving satisfactory, his 
 authority might be confirmed and continued. The 
 apostle, however, speaks expressly of his delivering 
 up the kingdom ; but does not say a syllable of his de- 
 livering in an account of his administration, much 
 less that they were one and the same thing : neither 
 does he say, nor is any thing of the kind to be met 
 with in any of the sacred writings, " that this mode of 
 delegated government being no longer requisite, the 
 government of God, as God, whether of Father, Son, 
 or Holy Spirit, shall be all in all." This meaning 
 I presume, for it is difficult to annex any other meaning 
 
 a 2
 
 228 
 
 to it, that they shall then all be joint and equal par- 
 takers in the government may be the language ot 
 Trinitarians; but it is not the language of the evange- 
 lists or apostles. What says the great apostle to the 
 gentiles in this very passage ? " that the end cometh, 
 when Christ shall have delivered up, not an accoimt, 
 but the kingdom itself, to God (T& 0s , God with the 
 article) even the Father, ." And what does he say shall 
 be done by the Son, when all this shall have taken 
 place ? That he shall reign equally with him and the 
 Holy Ghost? or that he shall reign at all ? No: but 
 that he shall be SUBJECT, subject to him that put all 
 things under him ; that God (o O^oc, God with the 
 article,) the same o <?;, God with the article, just be- 
 fore described to be the Father, for he mentions no 
 other, may be all in all ; meaning, according to your 
 own very correct sense of the phrase in this respect, 
 that his government will be all in all. 
 
 There is not a word in this whole passage calcu- 
 lated to convey the least idea, that, after Christ shall 
 have delivered up the kingdom to the Father, any one 
 shall exercise the powers and authorities of it but the 
 Father only. Of the Son nothing is said, but that he 
 shall be subject. Of the Holy Ghost, nothing at all. 
 The old subterfuge of the supposed two natures is quite 
 out of the question ; the person who is to be subject, 
 instead of reigning, being described to be the Son, 
 whatever he consisted of. If, as the Trinitarians sup- 
 pose, he consists of a divine and human nature inse-
 
 229 
 
 jHmibly united, and constituting one person called the 
 Son ; that person after his exaltation, and when in the 
 full possession of all his glories, is to be subject to his 
 EQUAL! It is sufficient, however, to observe, that the 
 apostle himself makes use of no expression which can 
 be so twisted, and perverted, as to give countenance 
 to any such notion. He does not say that the Son 
 shall deliver up the kingdom to any being composed 
 of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; but expressly, and 
 unequivocally, declares, that he shall deliver it uj3 to 
 God, even the Father, which wholly excludes both the 
 Son himself and any supposed person called the Holy 
 Spirit. He does say that the Son, after this, shall be 
 subject. He does not say that the Son after this shall 
 reign ; nor do any of his words import that he ever 
 contemplated the subsequent dominion of any one but 
 the Father only. The fancy therefore, that he had in 
 view the subsequent government of the Son, of whpm 
 he says nothing, but that he was to be subject ; or sf ' 
 a supposed person, distinct from the Father and thfe 
 Son, whom he does not so much as mention or allude 
 to, has really nothing to support it ; but is Hkte one 
 of the unsubstantial visions of the night, which the 
 first returning ray of the bright orb of day banishes 
 for ever. 
 
 You have mentioned three instances of persons not 
 prepossessed, as you conceive, by Trinitarian notions, 
 but two of them on the contrary entertaining Unita- 
 rian opinions, and one being a Deist, who had em-
 
 230 
 
 braced the Trinitarian doctrine ; the latter of whom, 
 you say, " meeting with a book on the evidences of 
 Christianity, which altered his views, sat down to read 
 the Greek Testament, to learn what were its doctrines, 
 and set down every text which appeared to support 
 the divinity of Christ, and every one which seemed to 
 oppose it ; and on comparing them, he adopted the 
 double view of Christ, as both God and man, which 
 he never afterwards doubted." I have never denied 
 that there have been a few instances, and very few in- 
 deed they have been, of Unitarians having adopted 
 different views of Christianity, and having become 
 Trinitarians; which is by no means surprising, when 
 we consider the nature of the human mind, and in 
 what manner it is frequently influenced in forming 
 its judgements. But let me entreat you to put into 
 the opposite scale the multitudes who have deserted 
 the Trinitarian cause, and joined the Unitarians, and 
 amongst them so many men of distinguished learning 
 and talents. 
 
 You have not informed me, however, that either of 
 the persons you state to have exchanged Unitarian 
 for Trinitarian sentiments was not educated in Trini- 
 tarian opinions ; and we well know the effect of early 
 habits and associations, when the mind begins once 
 more to waver and fluctuate. The Deist you allude 
 to might have been educated a Trinitarian ; and, if 
 he were not, was probably always, or generally, accus- 
 tomed to hear of Christianity as connected .with the
 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and adopted in such connec- 
 tion by the great body of Christians. He might pro- 
 bably, too, have made use of a Greek Testament con- 
 taining more than one spurious text, introduced by 
 Trinitarians in support of their system ; particularly 
 the celebrated one, 1 John v. 7 r , "For there are three 
 that bear record in Heaven ; the Father, the Word, 
 and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one:" which 
 we know had so much influence upon the mind of 
 Dr. Doddridge, and no doubt upon thousands of 
 others, but which no critic or scholar will now deny 
 to be a palpable forgery. 
 
 The double view of Christ, both as God and Man, 
 which you mention with approbation as having been 
 adopted by the Deist, and which has been so highly 
 extolled by Trinitarian writers in general, as calcu- 
 lated to solve all difficulties relative to the person of 
 Christ, appears to me, except in that view of the 
 former term which was taken of it by our Lord him- 
 self, when he intimated that it might have been ap- 
 plied to him in its inferior sense, as well as to the 
 prophets who preceded him, not only to have no 
 foundation in Scripture, but to create difficulties, 
 instead of solving them. The Trinitarians who in- 
 vented it, cannot very well do without it ; but, like 
 other ill-constructed instruments, it appears to me, 
 to use a homely expression, to make more holes 
 than it mends. I shall specify a few instances of 
 this. When our Lord (Matth. xxiv. 36), speaking
 
 to his disciples of the day of judgment, says, " But 
 b? that day and hour knoweth no one, no, not the 
 angels of heaven ; but my Father ONLY ;" we under- 
 stand our Lord perfectly, and believe him readily, that 
 this day is a secret to men and angels, even to the 
 Son himself, and is known only to the Father. Every 
 thing is perfectly plain and easy, till the Trinitarian 
 cdmes with his double view, and says, How can that 
 be ? The Son is perfect God as well as man, and 
 being omniscient, must know every thing : he must 
 therefore, he says, know it in someway or other; and 
 makes a clumsy and abortive attempt to explain it by 
 his two natures, which does not explain it, being in 
 direct opposition to the concluding words of the pas- 
 sage, but leaves it as great a mystery as the Trinity 
 itself. 
 
 So, John xvii. 13, our Lord, praying to the Fa- 
 ther for the disciples, whom he (the Father) had given 
 him, makes use of these words : " Father, the hour 
 is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glo- 
 rify 'thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, 
 that he should give eternal life to as many as thou 
 hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they 
 might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent." Here too, every thing is clear 
 and perspicuous. Our Lord distinguishes between his 
 Father who had sent him, and himself who had been 
 sent, and expressly declares his Father to be the only 
 'true God,- a declaration so plain, so unambiguous,
 
 233 
 
 that it seems impossible to raise any cfoubt or diffi- 
 culty upon it, till this infallible optical invention of 
 the double view is applied to it ; when instantly all 
 becomes darkness and confusion, from which even 
 Trinitarian ingenuity cannot extricate us. 
 
 In like manner, when our Lord (John xiv. 28) ex- 
 pressly says, "My Father is greater than I," we per- 
 ceive an explicit and intelligible avowal of his own in- 
 feriority to the Father, corresponding with many other 
 expressions he has elsewhere made use of to the same 
 effect ; and immediately give him credit for the truth 
 of the assertion, entertaining no suspicion of any men- 
 tal reservation or double dealing, or that the words are 
 not to be understood in their ordinary and natural 
 sense. But when the double view comes, it mars 
 every thing, and creates a difficulty where before there 
 had been none at all. 
 
 Thus likewise in the passage lately cited, Matth. xx. 
 20 23, where our Lord informs the mother of James 
 and John, " that to sit on his right hand and on his 
 left, in his kingdom, was not his to give ; but that it 
 should be given to them for whom it was prepared of 
 his Father;" we understand him, in the obvious and 
 usual sense of the words, not to have been invested 
 with authority to appoint to these most distinguished 
 places in the kingdom he was about to receive ; but 
 that they should be given to those for whom it was pre- 
 pared of the Father : and find no obscurity in the pas- 
 sage till we begin to see double; when suddenly every
 
 234 
 
 thing becomes distorted and perplexed, and we know 
 not what to make of it. Like the good woman, who 
 on being asked how she liked the exposition of a text 
 in scripture which she had just heard, replied with 
 great simplicity, that when she read it in her bible she 
 understood it very well, but after the doctor had been 
 expounding it for an hour, she knew nothing at all 
 about it. 
 
 Having observed in my last Letter, that though you 
 stated that some of the Fathers shewed from the use 
 of the word lv in our Lord's declaration, John x. 30, 
 " I and my Father are one (Iv)," that the doctrine of 
 the Trinity was not a contradiction, inasmuch as he 
 does not say that two persons are s!g (one), but Jy, 
 that is TO Sstov (one divine being), as they are pleased, 
 without a tittle of evidence, to explain it ; I must take 
 the liberty of affirming, that to say that two persons 
 are one being was a flat contradiction ; for that I sup- 
 posed it would not be denied that a person was a being, 
 that consequently two persons must be two beings ; 
 and that to say that two persons were but one being, 
 was a palpable absurdity. You now reply in these 
 words : " As to the flat contradiction with which you 
 charge the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in one God, 
 it is always to be remembered that the Trinitarians 
 do not take the word person there, in the same sense 
 as in common speech. We contend that it is to be 
 taken in some middle, sense, between the philosophi- 
 cal person, as a distinct complete being, and the po-
 
 235 
 
 litical, as George king of Hanover is a distinct person 
 from George king of England. If you say, we know 
 of no such person ; I answer, every thing in the Deity 
 is sui generis, nor can we expect that his personal 
 mode of subsisting should be like ours. If he him- 
 self, who best knows his own nature, speaks of him- 
 self as including three personal DISTINCTIONS, it is to 
 me a sufficient reason for believing it. Contradic- 
 tions I do not, cannot believe; though Unitarians as 
 you would prefer being called, though I cannot con- 
 cede to you the appellation suppose we do : yet I can 
 believe many things to be true, of which I have only 
 a very imperfect knowledge. Indeed every thing con- 
 cerning the Deity I believe in this way, for I can have 
 complete knowledge and adequate ideas of nothing 
 divine." 
 
 This, my dear Sir, is a most important step, and 
 brings us much nearer to each other, which I am ex- 
 tremely happy to find ; for, admitting the word person, 
 as applied to the Trinity, not to mean a person, as is 
 understood by the word in common parlance, and that 
 the Supreme Being speaks of himself as including 
 three personal distinctions, which you seem to consi- 
 der as constituting the Trinity; we arrive at the system 
 of the Nominalists, who maintain that the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinctions in the 
 one self-existing Deity, analogous to the faculties of 
 understanding, will, and power, in men, to which three 
 distinctions, personal terms may be applied. Amongst
 
 236 
 
 the ancients, Saint Augustine appears to have been 
 an advocate for this hypothesis; and Calvin, Hooker, 
 Burnett, Wallis, South, find Baxter, amongst the 
 moderns. If what have been commonly denominated 
 persons in the Godhead, are not persons in the usual 
 sense of the word ; but only three personal distinc- 
 tions, or some things, between philosophical persons, 
 as distinct and complete beings, and political persons, 
 and are no otherwise distinct persons than George 
 king of England is a distinct person from George 
 king of Hanover, whom we know very well to be one 
 person, and one being, sustaining two different charac- 
 ters, as king of two different kingdoms, there is no 
 more a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, than there 
 is a duality of persons in our venerable and afflicted 
 monarch. There may be three, or three hundred di- 
 stinctions in the same person ; but what there is to 
 make a distinction a person, or how the one is to be 
 transformed into the other, we are not yet informed, 
 nor can we conceive. A. personal distinction is no 
 more a person, than a p-'^sonal ornament, as a, ring, 
 or a necklace, or a bracelet. If any one can under- 
 stand what is meant by personal distinctions, other than 
 personal powers, characters, attributes, or relations, I 
 must confess it is more than I can ; and if they mean 
 powers, characters, relations, or attributes, as I sup- 
 pose is intended by selecting the great personage who 
 is king of England and of Hanover for a jproof, or in- 
 stance, I cannot siefe in what respect your system dif-
 
 237 
 
 fers materially from that of Dr. Wallis, formerly Savillian 
 Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, one of the Nomi- 
 nalists above mentioned, who, in his Considerations on 
 the Trinity, p. 7, censures it as " a silly mistake, that 
 a divine person is as much as to say a Divinity or a 
 God ; when indeed a divine person is only a mode, or 
 respect, or relation of God to his creatures. He bears 
 to his creatures these three relations, modes, or re- 
 spects, that he is their creator, their redeemer, their 
 sanctifier. This is what we mean, and all that we 
 mean, when we say God is three persons. He hath 
 those three relations to his creatures, and is thereby 
 no more three Gods, than he was three Gods to the 
 Jews, because he calls himself the God of Abraham, 
 the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." 
 
 This, as it has been justly called, (Belsham's Calm 
 Inquiry, p. 337) truly Unitarian doctrine, appears to 
 have received the marked approbation of the Univer- 
 sity of Oxford ; while Dr. Sherlock's hypothesis, that 
 the three persons of the Trinity were three distinct 
 infinite minds, underwent a puttie censure. And vyith 
 this modal hypothesis Mr. Lindsey satisfied himself 
 to remain in the church, and to use the liturgy, some 
 years after he became an Unitarian. 
 
 The objections to this hypothesis cannot with equal 
 brevity, if at all, be better stated than in the words of 
 Mr. Belsham (Calm Inquiry, p. 338); namely: 
 
 " 1st. That if by distinctions, or persons, attributes 
 only are meant, the word person is used in a sense
 
 238 
 
 very different from that which custom has established, 
 and in a manner which must necessarily deceive those 
 who are not upon their guard against this unprece- 
 dented abuse of language. 
 
 " 2dly. That this hypothesis in fact annihilates the 
 proper personality, and thereby the real existence, of 
 the Son and Spirit: and though the advocates of this 
 hypothesis hold the language of proper Trinitarians, 
 yet, in ideas, they coincide altogether with the Sabel- 
 lians, or even with the proper Unitarians. 
 
 " 3dly. That this hypothesis converts a great part 
 of the language of the New Testament into unintel- 
 ligible jargon. Thus when it is said that the Father 
 sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world, it is the 
 same as saying, that one attribute, or distinction of 
 the Deity, sent another attribute, or distinction of the 
 Deity, to be the Saviour of the world. And when the 
 Son prayed to the Father, one attribute or distinction 
 of the divine nature prayed to another attribute of 
 distinction of the divine nature. 
 
 " 4thly. That if it should be maintained, that the 
 three persons in the Godhead are three distinctions, 
 or, as some have expressed themselves, three some- 
 whats, that are not to be understood, or explained, 
 this is substituting words, instead of ideas, and is in 
 fact little better than giving up the question." 
 
 Mr. Yates (Vindication of Unitarianism, p. 125) 
 very properly inquires of those who hold this doctrine: 
 
 " Why they call the three relations of God, as our
 
 '239 
 
 creator, reedeemer, and sanctifier, three persons, al- 
 though the term is not so used in Scripture, and none 
 could be more unappropriate ? 
 
 " Why they restrict themselves to the number three, 
 although God is not only the creator, the redeemer, 
 and the sanctifier of mankind; but bears towards them 
 various other relations ; being, for example, their pre- 
 server, their governor, and their judge ? 
 
 " Why they assert, that these three relations existed 
 from all eternity : for how could God bear the relation 
 of a creator, before he had created any thing ; or the 
 relation of a redeemer, before he had redeemed man- 
 kind through Christ ; or the relation of a sanctifier, 
 before there were any rational beings to sanctify? 
 
 " What sense there is, in the expression, that the 
 relation of Redeemer was begotten from the relation 
 of Creator, and that the relation of Sanctifier proceeds 
 from the relation of Creator and Redeemer ? 
 
 " Lastly, why they worship three modes, or relations 
 of God, instead of worshiping God himself?" 
 
 In addition to which, I shall beg leave to address 
 the following questions to yourself: Where, if your 
 system does not exactly coincide with that of the No- 
 minalists, do you find, in the whole compass of Scrip- 
 ture, any declaration that there are three persons in 
 the Godhead, or that the word person is applied to any 
 thing subsisting in the divine nature in some middle 
 sense, between the philosophical person, as a distinct 
 complete being, and the political person ? This ap-
 
 pear; to me to be all poetry, mere human invention, 
 devised to support other inventions. I must certainly 
 declare, that I know of no such person, and should be 
 glad if you would inform me where any such person 
 is described in the Scriptures. I have no objection 
 to admit that every thing in the Deity is sui generis:, 
 but deny that it can be proved from the Scriptures, that 
 there is anything in the divine nature HUJUS generis, 
 any thing like the sort of person taken in a middle 
 sense, which you have described. We cannot, it is 
 true, expect that his personal mode of subsisting 
 should be like ours ; but we have an undoubted right 
 to expect, that it should be shewn to have been re- 
 vealed to be like that which you have described, be- 
 fore we believe it to be so. I perfectly concur with 
 you in opinion, that if he .himself, who best knows 
 his own nature, speaks of himself as including three 
 personal distinctions, it is a sufficient reason for be- 
 lieving it; but where does he make this extraordinary 
 declaration? I by no means wish to impute the be- 
 lief of contradictions, knowing them to be such, to 
 any one, far less to yourself; jand the Trinity you 
 seem to profess, as you have now explained it, being 
 a Trinity of personal distinctions or relations, if I am 
 not mistaken in my ideas of it, seems less open to 
 objections of this kind, than the Trinity as commonly 
 received by Trinitarians, consisting of three distinct 
 persons or minds, and supposed by them to constitute 
 but one God ; for as God is allowed by all, not only
 
 to be a being, but to be the first and greatest of all 
 beings, and as persons must, as long as there is any 
 meaning in language, be considered, as they always 
 have been, to be beings, to say that two persons are 
 one being, is, as I remarked in my former Letter, not 
 only a flat contradiction, but a palpable absurdity : 
 but to say that two personal distinctions may subsist 
 in one being, though it may not be intelligible till 
 we know what is meant by such distinctions, cannot 
 be decidedly pronounced to be a contradiction. It is, 
 however, equally unscriptural : and why should such 
 subtle, abstruse, and perplexed doctrines be forced 
 upon us, and the belief of them be represented as es- 
 sential to our salvation, when the doctrines themselves 
 are no where stated in the sacred writings, much less 
 is our salvation declared to be in any manner con- 
 nected with the belief of them ? 
 
 "I feel some surprise, I must confess, that you he- 
 sitate to concede the name of Unitarians to us, who 
 believe in the absolute unity of the Supreme Being, 
 considered as one person and as one being, unmixed 
 with any opinion that can raise, even in words, the idea 
 of a plurality, either of Gods, or persons constituting 
 God, and believe him alone to be God, and none else. 
 If we are not Unitarians, no other body of Christians 
 can be. The only doubt I have ever before heard started, 
 has been, whether we were entitled to the appellation, 
 to the exclusion of our Trinitarian brethren ; which, 
 after all, may possibly be what you mean. If Trini-
 
 242 
 
 tarians, conceiving themselves to maintain the Divine 
 Unity in one view of it, choose to adopt the term, I 
 should certainly never think of making any objection 
 to it ; but should consider them as one class of Uni- 
 tarians, having one view (though in my judgement an 
 erroneous view) of the subject, and ourselves as an- 
 other class of Unitarians, having a different, and in my 
 humble opinion a more correct view of it. 
 
 We undoubtedly prefer to be called Unitarians 
 rather than Socinians, because the former name, as 
 far as it goes, does denote our opinions ; whilst the 
 latter, as we differ materially from the Socinians, can 
 only misrepresent us, and deceive others. We decline 
 it, not as a name of reproach, though our opponents 
 have sometimes endeavoured to fasten it upon us for 
 this unworthy purpose; for .we consider the two noble 
 Italians, Laelius and Faustus Socinus, from whom it 
 is derived, to have been men who would have done 
 honour to any sect ; but we take not from them such 
 of the doctrines as we happen to hold in common 
 with them, but from the Scriptures, as the majority 
 of Christians, who were Unitarians also during the 
 three first centuries, did before us ; and we do not re- 
 gard the two distinguished characters just mentioned 
 as having first revived the Unitarian doctrines in mo- 
 dern times; for when Faustus Socinus went into Po- 
 land, he found Unitarians there before him : and there 
 is reason to think that Unitarianism was never com- 
 pletely extinguished, either in Asia, or in the South
 
 243 
 
 of France and Italy, even in the darkest and most bar- 
 barous ages. 
 
 I can believe with yourself many things to be true, 
 of which I have only a very imperfect knowledge ; but 
 I expect, notwithstanding, to have very satisfactory 
 evidence of their truth, before I accede to the belief 
 of it. The less I know of the nature of a thing, the 
 more likely I am to be mistaken about it; and conse- 
 quently the more diligently I am bound to investigate 
 it, before I give my assent to its being this, or that. 
 For the same reason, because I can have complete 
 knowledge and adequate ideas of nothing divine, I 
 am the more suspicious of being deceived when any 
 thing in particular is propounded to me as being di- 
 vine, or a divine attribute, or as being part of the Di- 
 vine Nature ; and I require as strict, if not stricter 
 proof of it, before I can believe it to be true, than of 
 most other things, particularly if it appears, when first 
 stated, to be extraordinary, improbable, or absurd. 
 
 Your next statement is, " that you find the Re- 
 deemer commands his apostles to baptize in the name, 
 not names, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that 
 all admit the Father and Son to be persons ; and that 
 it is most strange if the other is not ; for such asso- 
 ciation of two persons with a mere quality, or an in- 
 fluence from one of the two, could only be expected 
 to mislead; that the apostles implored benediction 
 from three; that each of the three is commended to 
 our reverence and obedience." 
 
 R2
 
 In reply to this, I shall first inquire, whether you 
 are quite certain, that the words in the 1 9th verse of the 
 28th chapter of St. Matthew, "baptizing them into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Spirit,* are genuine. I admit that if they have been 
 interpolated, the interpolation must have taken place 
 previous to the existence of any of our present manu- 
 scripts. But as the earliest of these does not go back 
 further than the fourth century, and some interpola- 
 tions, and numerous various readings, have taken place 
 since, we are by no means at liberty to declare posi- 
 tively, that during the three first centuries there were 
 none at all, and in particular that this passage was 
 not one, especially if we have strong evidence, intrin- 
 sic or extrinsic, to favour the opinion that it .was. 
 Now in the first place, upon a strict examination of 
 the context it will be found, that if the words in ques- 
 tion be omitted, it will not disturb the context at all, 
 which will read as easily and smoothly, if not more 
 so, than when they are present : for the words (ver. 19 
 and 20) "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, teach- 
 ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you," where the words 'teaching' and * teach- 
 ing' coming so near to each other would have an 
 unpleasant effect, on leaving out the intermediate 
 words, being the words in question, are not so in the 
 Greek ; but the expression is varied, as if to prevent 
 the ill effect which would have arisen from the almost 
 immediate repetition of the same word. In that Ian-
 
 245 
 
 guage t s Hgsv&ft$ ow ju&ff&tttftfri Travra T 
 ^i^oKDCovTsg avTovg rvjpsiv Trctvrx oV fvsTS/Aau^v vu.iv* 
 KUI i$ov, zyw [A&Q VJJ.MV sifju 7tot<rct$ tag T^xs^ag-, swf T^J 
 ff-vvTsXsiotg toy exiuvog. Go forth, (or having gone forth,) 
 therefore, instruct (or make disciples of) all nations..... 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you ; and lo, I am with you always to the 
 end of the age." To my ears the passage, thus di- 
 vested of the words in question, runs more smoothly 
 than it does with them. There is no want of a con- 
 junction between * instruct' and * teaching', the one 
 being in the imperative mood and the other in the 
 participle present, as there seems to be between 'bap- 
 tizing' and * teaching', both of which are participles 
 present. Laying no stress, however, upon this, such 
 omissions not being unusual, and my design in noti- 
 cing the construction of the passage being only to shew 
 that it will read at least as well, without the words al- 
 luded to as with them, I proceed to the extrinsic evi- 
 dence against them, which appears to me to be very 
 strong. In the first place, if our Lord had, at the time 
 in question, (after his resurrection and just before his 
 ascension,) commanded his apostles to baptize all na- 
 tions into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Spirit ; such a command, being one of the 
 last he ever delivered to them, would, having been en- 
 joined upon them at such a time and in so solemn a 
 manner, have made the deepest impression upon their 
 minds ; and a regular and constant compliance with it
 
 246 
 
 would have been considered by them as it is by the 
 Trinitarians at present to have been of the greatest 
 importance. It must necessarily have been regarded 
 as a most solemn law, binding them to the strictest 
 performance, and requiring to be carefully enjoined 
 upon every Christian, by all who called themselves 
 teachers of Christianity. But what is the fact ? Three 
 out of the four historians who have written the life 
 of our Lord, one of whom professes to give an ac- 
 count of all that he did and taught, take no notice of 
 it at all, but pass it over in absolute silence. In ad- 
 dition to their histories, we have numerous Epistles 
 explaining and enforcing the principles and practice 
 of Christianity, written by five of our Lord's own apo- 
 stles, not one of whom mentions, or even alludes to, 
 this commandment or this form of baptism ; as if they 
 had never heard either of the one or the other. But 
 what is still more extraordinary, and wholly unac- 
 countable, (except upon the supposition that these 
 words are a subsequent interpolation,) these writers, 
 and particularly Saint Luke, who has given us a nar- 
 rative of the transactions of the apostles for a period 
 of thirty years after our Lord's ascension, often treat 
 even of Christian baptism, not only without mention- 
 ing or alluding to this form ; but actually describing 
 the form made use of by themselves, and by those 
 whom they appointed to baptize, which never, in any 
 one instance, appears to have been the form prescribed 
 by this supposed commandment ; but on the contrary,
 
 247 
 
 instead of being a baptism into the name of the Father, 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, appears to have 
 been a baptism into the name of our Lord only ! How 
 is this to be accounted for ? Is it not much easier to 
 believe that these words were interpolated at some 
 subsequent period, after the death not only of St. Mat- 
 thew, but of all the rest of the apostles, than to adopt 
 the absolutely incredible opinion, that our Lord's own 
 disciples and companions should have wholly disre- 
 garded one of his last, and most authoritative and 
 weighty injunctions ? that seven of the New Testament 
 writers out of eight, six of whom were his apostles, 
 knowing it well, should have utterly neglected to 
 make the least mention of it, as if it had been a thing 
 of no consequence whatever ; and should, in all the 
 instances of baptism, which they have recorded as hav- 
 ing been concerned in or acquainted with, have en- 
 tirely disobeyed it themselves, or have related its dis- 
 obedience by others, without a single remark in dis- 
 approbation of their conduct ? 
 
 Such are the circumstances attending this famous 
 text. Let every one determine for himself what de- 
 gree of credit he can believe to be due to it. Who 
 will venture to affirm, after he has maturely considered 
 the whole, that it is unquestionably authentic ? And 
 unless it is, how could it be regarded as an authority 
 to prove any doctrine ; and more especially so impor- 
 tant and extraordinary a doctrine as that of the Tri- 
 nity ? supposing it capable of proving it, if it were in
 
 248 
 
 dubitably genuine, which will be another question tor 
 our future consideration. 
 
 The following texts will evince, that if this supposed 
 commandment was ever given, it was not only not at- 
 tended to, but was disregarded and disobeyed from 
 the very first. Acts ii. 38 : " Then Peter said unto 
 them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit." This ex- 
 hortation of the apostle, it will beremembered, was 
 given by him in the first Christian sermon that was 
 ever preached after our Lord's resurrection, a very 
 short time only after the supposed command to bap- 
 tize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit is pretended to have been so solemnly 
 promulgated, and when it must have remained so 
 strongly impressed upon the memories of all those to 
 whom it was addressed. The Holy Spirit is mentioned 
 too, so that the apostle's attention was called to it at 
 the very time ; yet he mentions it as a gift, something 
 to be given, some property or power ; and never once 
 as a person, into whose name his hearers were to be 
 baptized. Can any one make up his mind to believe, 
 without any doubt or hesitation, that this chief of the 
 apostles, or any one else who had ever heard of this 
 supposed commandment, would not have said upon 
 the occasion in question, " Repent, and be baptized 
 every one of you in the name of the Father, of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Spirit," according to the very form
 
 249 
 
 so recently prescribed by his beloved and then highly 
 exalted Master ? 
 
 In the 10th chapter of the Acts; ver. 48, it is said-^- 
 after the same apostle had asked whether any one 
 could forbid water, that Cornelius the Centurion and 
 his friends should not be baptized, who had received 
 the Holy Spirit as well as himself and his companions 
 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
 name of the Lord" In the 19th chapter, ver. 5, 6, we 
 have the following words respecting certain disciples 
 at Ephesus who had been previously baptized into the 
 baptism of John : " When they heard this, they were 
 baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when 
 Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit 
 came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and 
 prophesied." Here also the Holy Spirit was not for- 
 gotten ; notwithstanding which, the baptismal cere- 
 mony, as performed under the direction of the great 
 apostle to the Gentiles, was not in the form supposed 
 to have been expressly enjoined by our Lord himself, 
 but in the name of the Lord Jesus only. This terrible 
 blunder, therefore, (or unaccountable omission, as it 
 would be considered at present,) was not confined to a 
 single instance, or to a few individuals only ; but, if 
 the passage in question be true, a defective and erro- 
 neous form of baptism, entirely different from that 
 commanded by our Lord, was practised by different 
 apostles, at different times and upon a variety of dif- 
 ferent converts : nor does it appear that any other was
 
 250 
 
 in those days ever practised upon any one. What ra- 
 tional explanation can be given of all this ? Were not 
 the apostles men like ourselves ? Had they no memo- 
 ries, or no inclination, as we profess to have, to obey 
 the particular injunctions of their revered Master; and 
 more especially one of the last he ever delivered to 
 them ? 
 
 In the 8th chapter of the same book, ver. 16, it is 
 said of the Samaritans, who were converted by Philip 
 the Evangelist, after Peter and John had prayed for 
 them that they might receive the Holy Spirit: " for as 
 yet it was fallen upon none of them, only they were 
 baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Hence we 
 find that the whole body of converts in Samaria who 
 had been converted by Philip, were baptized in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus only. Did Philip the Evan- 
 gelist also know nothing of the pretended command- 
 ment of our Lord, to baptize in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ? or did he like- 
 wise know it, and wilfully disobey it ? Which of the 
 alternatives shall we adopt ? If he knew nothing of 
 it, and the apostles did, how happened it, that they 
 who ordained him let him go forth to preach and to 
 baptize, and yet were so grossly negligent, as not to 
 acquaint him with the proper form of baptism ? Who 
 can believe this of our Lord's own apostles ? Philip 
 himself we may presume was baptized on his conver- 
 sion : and is it to be imagined that he was baptized 
 in any other manner than that which he himself after-
 
 251 
 
 wards practised ? The baptism of the three thousand 
 who were converted to Christianity by the first preach- 
 ing of the apostles (Acts ii. 41), and the form of bap- 
 tism practised upon them, must have been a matter 
 of general notoriety to all the Christians: and is it 
 not to be presumed that they too were all of them 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus only ? If they 
 were not, Phiiip must have known it, and, no doubt, 
 would have followed the numerous examples which 
 had been thus set him by his superiors in the Chris- 
 tian ministry. If they were baptized in the name of 
 the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and 
 Philip being acquainted with it, as he must have 
 been, and with the solemn commandment of our Lord 
 to baptize in this form had, in daring violation of 
 this commandment, and of the practice of the apostles 
 founded upon it, thought fit to baptize his Christian 
 converts at Samaria in the name of the Lord Jesus 
 only ; would not the apostles Peter and John, when 
 they found this to have been the case, have immedi- 
 ately expressed their disapprobation, and perhaps have 
 directed them to be rebaptized ? As they said nothing, 
 however, against it, but immediately laid their hands 
 upon them (as requiring nothing more) that they 
 might receive the Holy Spirit, they admitted, in the 
 fullest manner, that baptism in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus was the proper form of baptism, and conse- 
 quently could never have believed, or supposed, that
 
 252 
 
 our Lord had commanded any other form for the ce- 
 lebration of this rite. 
 
 The apostle Paul afterwards, (Acts xix. 1 5,) find- 
 ing certain disciples at Ephesus who had been baptized 
 unto, or into, the baptism of John, did not consider 
 them properly baptized for Christian converts ; and 
 they were by his order, or with his knowledge and ap- 
 probation, baptized again : but wonderful as it would 
 have been, if any one at that time had known of the 
 supposed command of our Lord to baptize differently 
 they were all baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus 
 only. The time did arrive, when this latter form of 
 baptism, sanctioned by the express example, and (as 
 far as we know) the uniform practice, of the apostles, 
 came to be considered invalid and insufficient : but it 
 was not in the days of the apostles, or of their con- 
 temporaries who survived them. It cannot fail to be 
 considered as a most striking fact, that in these texts 
 whole bodies of Christians are shewn to have been 
 baptized into the name of Christ only, whilst not a 
 single instance can be produced of any one having 
 ever been baptized by the "apostles, or by their assist- 
 ants or contemporaries, into the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It would have been sufficient for me, to have made 
 it appear that there are objections to this passage 
 which must at least prevent us from pronouncing it 
 to be indubitably and beyond all suspicion genuine ;
 
 253 
 
 and ought therefore to induce us to hesitate, before 
 we produce it as a, proof of a doctrine which requires 
 the highest degree of certainty to establish its truth : 
 but I think I have done more. You will of course, 
 however, exercise your own judgement and form your 
 own opinion upon the subject : but whatever that 
 opinion may be, I consider it my duty to shew, that 
 even if the passage were correct, and the words un- 
 questionably proceeded from the mouth of our Lord, 
 and were actually recorded by the pen of the evange- 
 list, they would be utterly incapable of proving what 
 you have quoted them for, and would never establish 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Taking it for granted then, for the sake of the ar- 
 gument, to have been a real and genuine command- 
 ment of our Lord, to baptize into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son (who are unquestionably per- 
 sons), and of the Holy Spirit (whatever it may be, 
 whether a person, property, or influence),- is it said 
 that each of them is God ? or that the Son, or the 
 Holy Spirit, is God ? No. That all three are one God? 
 No. That all three are equal ? No. or, That they all 
 subsist in the same being, or substance ? No : no- 
 thing like it. Does then the naming of'two or more 
 persons together, or at the same time, or the joining 
 of them in the same form or ceremony, prove that 
 they are one, or that they are equal ; or that, if one of 
 them happens to be God, the others must also be 
 God ? Does the baptizing (sis) into, or (*/$ TO
 
 254 
 
 into the name of, any person (which is the same thing), 
 prove that person to be God ? If not, how can the pas- 
 sage prove the doctrine of the Trinity ? 
 
 Though it properly .belongs to you to prove the af- 
 firmative, which you have not attempted, I shall have 
 no difficulty in making out the negative from the 
 Scriptures themselves, which are our best guides. The 
 following texts will shew most clearly, that the bap- 
 tizing into, or into the name of, any person means 
 one and the same thing, and does not prove him to 
 be God. Rom. vi. 3 : " Know ye not, that so many 
 of us as were baptized (sic) into Jesus Christ were 
 baptized into his death?" Gal. iii. 27: "For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
 Christ." Now as every one must be satisfied from the 
 four texts quoted above from the Book of Acts, 
 namely, Acts ii. 38, Acts x. 48, Acts viii. 16, and 
 xix. 1-5, and even still more, if he believes the words in 
 question to be genuine, that all the persons to whom 
 the apostle alluded in Rom. vi. 3, and Gal. iii. 27, 
 must have been baptized into the name of Christ, (and 
 they are spoken of in these two last texts as having 
 been baptized into Christ,) it is evident that being 
 baptized into Christ, and into the name of Christ, 
 mean one and the same thing. If any further proof 
 were requisite that the name of a person is used to de- 
 note the person himself, we should find it in Psalm 
 xx. ver. 1 and 7 : "The Lord hear thee in the day of 
 trouble ; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee.**
 
 255 
 
 " Some trust in chariots and some in horses ; but we 
 will remember the name of the Lord our God:" mean- 
 ing nothing more nor less, than remembering God 
 himself. Thus we say in English, The King's Ma- 
 jesty (meaning the King himself) wills or requires 
 such a thing. Being baptized, therefore, unto, or in- 
 to, Moses or John, must mean the very same thing as 
 being baptized unto or into the name of Moses or of 
 John : and in 1 Corinthians chap. x. ver. 2, the chil- 
 dren of Israel are stated to have been baptized (f/f) 
 unto or into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. So 
 in the 19th chapter of the Acts, ver. 3, the disciples 
 whom Saint Paul found at Ephesus are stated to have 
 been baptized (si$) unto, or into, the baptism of John. 
 But did any one ever believe from these texts that 
 either Moses or John was God ? In 1 Cor. i. 1 2 
 15, we have these words, addressed by the apostle 
 Paul to the Corinthians : " Every one of you saith, I 
 am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and 
 I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified 
 for you ? or were ye baptized (sii) unto or into the 
 name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of 
 you, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any one should say 
 that I had baptized (si$) unto, or into, my own name.'' 
 By the question, "Is Christ divided?" it appears that 
 what the apostle was anxious to correct, was a conten- 
 tious, narrow-minded, and exclusive party spirit in 
 the early converts at Corinth, which was calculated 
 to produce discord and disunion amongst them, and
 
 256 
 
 made many of them plume themselves upon being fol- 
 lowers of some favourite apostle or teacher; instead of 
 their being all members of one body, and all disciples 
 and followers of one Master, namely, of Christ : and 
 even induced some, vho professed that they were of 
 Christ, to do it in the same temper of contention and 
 rivalry, in opposition to, and in exclusion of, those who 
 professed to be of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. 
 
 This spirit of party, which the apostle censures as 
 carnal in chap. iii. ver. 3 and 4 of the same Epistle, 
 there might have been more pretence for, if each of 
 these apostles and their coadjutors had baptized in 
 his own name ; which the apostle Paul therefore, on 
 his part, wholly disavows ; but could never have sup- 
 posed that those whom he himself had instructed that 
 there was but one God, would, even if he had baptized 
 in his own name, have imagined from this, that he 
 himself was God, or that he could have intended to 
 intimate to them, that, by disavowing it, he declined 
 to accept of divine honourshonours which they no 
 more designed to offer, than he to accept. Of course 
 he himself could never have annexed any such idea to 
 the phrase. 
 
 But we obtain some insight into what he considered 
 to be the sense of it in his Epistle to the Romans, 
 ch. vi. ver. 3, where we find him making use of the fol- 
 lowing words : " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized (*/$) 
 into his death ?" What would be said of drawing an
 
 257 
 
 inference from this, that the death of Christ is God, 
 or an object of religious worship ? Is it not more ra- 
 tional to conclude, that those who are baptized into 
 Christ, and therefore into his death, are thereby bap- 
 tized into, or make profession of, their belief in him, 
 and his death, as the ground of their future hopes ? 
 or say, as has been well observed by Mr. Yates, "that 
 to be baptized into a person or thing, or into the name 
 of a person or thing, is to avow our faith in that per- 
 son or thing, and not to make it the object of wor- 
 ship : that we are thus enabled to determine the true 
 sense of the appointed formula, which is, Go and make 
 disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, as a testi- 
 mony of their belief, in the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit. The passage," he informs us, " is 
 so explained, not only by all the Unitarian expositors, 
 but also by Dr. Whitby, in his paraphrase : Go ye 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name, or into the belief, of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost." To them I shall add Hi- 
 lary, one of the Latin Fathers, who flourished about 
 the middle or towards the latter end of the fourth 
 century, and who not only agrees with them in this ; 
 but also, though he has written largely concerning the 
 divinity of the Son, seems not to have had the same 
 persuasion concerning that of the Holy Spirit ; but, 
 in the little that he says upon the subject, appears 
 rather to have considered the Spirit as a divine influ- 
 ence. He represents our Saviour as commanding the 
 
 s
 
 25S 
 
 apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, as signifying a confession 
 of the Father, of the only begotten, and the gift. 
 "Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus 
 Sancti ; id est, in confessione et Authoris, et Unigeni- 
 ti, et Doni." Lib. iv. p. 22. 
 
 The baptizing therefore of men, who had previously 
 been made disciples, into, or into the name of, the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no more proves the two 
 latter to be God, than the baptizing of the Israelite* 
 into Moses, or many of the Jews into the baptism of 
 John, proves Moses and John to be God ; but leaves 
 it wholly undecided : and does not appear to be cal- 
 culated to determine whether the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, were equal, or unequal ; whether either 
 of the two latter was God, or was not God ; or whe- 
 ther the Holy Spirit was a person, or only the mira- 
 culous power, influence, or energy, of the Father, dis- 
 played by him in the miracles, signs, and wonders, 
 which he wrought by the apostles and their imme- 
 diate disciples in the first age of Christianity, in at- 
 testation of its truth. This they, who had previously 
 been made disciples of and instructed, by the apo- 
 stles, had in the course of such instruction been fully 
 informed of by them ; and we who follow them at so 
 great a distance of time, must learn it from the Scrip- 
 tures, our only safe and legitimate instructors in these 
 latter ages. 
 
 The next subject for our inquiry will be, whether
 
 259 
 
 the naming of two or more persons together, or at 
 the same time, or the joining of them in the same 
 form or ceremony, proves that they are one, or that 
 they are equal, or that if one of them is God, the 
 others also must be God. That none of these things 
 furnish the least proof of any of these positions, will 
 he manifest from the following texts : Exod. xiv. 31 ; 
 " And the people feared the Lord, and believed the 
 Lord and his servant Moses." Here we have Jeho- 
 vah and Moses joined in the same sentence, as the 
 objects of the belief of the Israelites. 1 Sam. xii. 18; 
 " And all the people greatly feared the Lord, and 
 Samuel." In this 'text the Lord and Samuel are 
 named together, as objects of the fear of the people 
 of Israel. 1 Chron. xxix. 20; " And all the congre- 
 gation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and 
 bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and 
 the king." In this place David is joined in the same 
 solemn form or ceremony with Jehovah, and the 
 whole congregation of Israel are represented as bow- 
 ing down their heads and worshipping both ; aye, and 
 what is more, as worshipping both at the same time and 
 in the same manner, as being both objects of joint 
 and solemn worship. Yet all this does not* prove, nor 
 was it ever supposed, that King David was God, or 
 equal to God; which obviously shews that the naming 
 two or more persons together, or joining them in the 
 same form or ceremony, proves nothing whatever as 
 to their unity or equality. If any other text was requi- 
 
 s2
 
 260 
 
 site in this respect, a more remarkable one could not 
 present itself than 1 Tim. v. 21. where St. Paul, in a 
 solemn adjuration, or charge, to Timothy, says : " I 
 charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 arid the elect angels, that thou observe these things." 
 Here the elect angels are joir.ed in the same religious 
 form of adjuration, or charge, with God and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ : and it is so like what Trinitarians have 
 been accustomed to consider as a Trinitarian form, 
 that if the words 'Holy Spirit' had been substituted 
 for 'elect angels,' it would have been considered as 
 furnishing irrefragable evidence of the truth of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and of each of the three being 
 God, and being equal to each other. Yet, as the elect 
 angels have not had the good fortune to be declared 
 to be God, or to be equal either to the Father or to 
 the Son, by any general council or synod, no one has 
 been hardy enough to deduce either their equality or 
 their godhead, from their having been thus united in 
 this solemn form. If this then does not prove either 
 the one or the Other as to them, what colour can there 
 be for pretending that the same thing, or something 
 exactly or very nearly resembling it, proves Jesus Christ 
 to be God, or to be equal to the Father ? 
 
 If therefore the supposed command to baptize into 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit, fails to prove that they are one, ot that 
 they are equal, or that if one is God the others must, 
 from their being thus joined in a form of baptism,
 
 261 
 
 any serious expectation of proving it, from its being 
 to baptize into the name (in the singular) and not 
 names, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Spirit, must really be catching at a shadow: for 
 though our blessed Lord, supposing the command to 
 have been given by him, might, if he had thought 
 fit, have used the word names in the plural number, 
 leaving nothing to be understood, he was equally at 
 liberty to use the word name, as it now stands in the 
 common version, in the singular before the first geni- 
 tive case, leaving it to be understood before the two 
 others, and giving the same sense as if it had been 
 repeated before each; that is, "in the name of the 
 Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of 
 the Holy Spirit:" as we find Luke ix. 26 ; " For who- 
 soever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of 
 him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall 
 come in the glory (in the singular number) of him- 
 self, and of the Father, and of the holy angels :" for 
 such is the literal translation ; and the word * glory* 
 being once mentioned before, the words * of himself 
 is left to be understood, though not expressed, before 
 the words ' of the Father' and the words * of the Holy 
 Spirit.' 
 
 Your reason for directing my attention to the word 
 'name' being in the singular number, I suppose, was 
 to induce me to think that our Lord and the apostle 
 considered the three who were spoken of, as one; and 
 therefore put the word name in the singular number.
 
 262 
 
 as if they had some one common name, which ap- 
 plied to them all : but this cannot be the construc- 
 tion ; for, if it were so, it must be recollected that 
 this would be the name we should be bound to bap- 
 tize into. We should consequently be much obliged 
 to our Trinitarian friends, if they would inform us 
 what it is, and who ever baptized into it since the first 
 promulgation of Christianity. The apostles certainly 
 did not so construe any command which they ever 
 heard of. They do not appear to have baptized into 
 any common name which applied to //; but, on the 
 contrary, uniformly baptized into a name that applied 
 to one only, that is to say, into the name of Christ. 
 The only common name that we in these latter times 
 have ever heard of, is that of the Trinity; a name no 
 where to be found in the Scriptures, but which un- 
 questionably would have been found there, had it been 
 then known ; a name which the apostles and their 
 companions were wholly ignorant of, and which nei- 
 ther they nor any one else in their times ever made 
 use of, or baptized into. 
 
 I am unable to perceive why the naming of the 
 Holy Spirit, considering it to be a power or influence 
 of the Father, would be strange, or calculated to mis- 
 lead, as you have supposed. If the baptism of Chris- 
 tians be a baptizing of them into the belief, or public 
 profession of their belief, of Christianity ; there would 
 have been nothing strange, had it really been com- 
 manded, in the apostles baptizing their converts into
 
 263 
 
 the belief of the Father (the Supreme God of the uni- 
 verse), into the belief of his Son Jesus Christ (whom 
 he sent into the world for its salvation), and into the 
 belief of that miraculous power, by which his mission 
 was proved and its purposes promoted, which they 
 themselves were favoured with, and daily exercised for 
 its promulgation and confirmation. These converts 
 having previously witnessed the effects of this miracu- 
 lous power, having probably been converted by the 
 miracles performed by it, and having been well in- 
 structed that it was the miraculous power of the Fa- 
 ther, poured out upon the apostles and their disciple* 
 for those purposes were not at all likely to be de- 
 ceived by being baptized into the belief of it, in con- 
 junction with the belief of the Father who had be^ 
 stowed it, and of the Son through whom it had been 
 bestowed by him. If there be any impropriety in 
 mentioning persons and a power in one sentence as 
 objects of our belief, under a pretence of its being an 
 association of them, which there is no law against, 
 that I am acquainted with, either of grammar, or of 
 any other description ; then, supposing the Holy Spi- 
 rit to be a person, John the Baptist was guilty of a 
 similar impropriety, when he informed his disciples, 
 (Matth. iii. 2), that Christ should baptize them with 
 the Holy Spirit and with Jire. 
 
 Upon that supposition, if I were to adopt your mode 
 of arguing, I should say, the Holy Spirit is a person, 
 and it is most strange if the other is not j for such an
 
 association of a person with a mere quality or influ- 
 ence can be only calculated to mislead. I should 
 thus prove fire to be a person, as well as the Holy 
 Spirit. It is singular that the Baptist is here speak- 
 ing of the same subject, namely baptism, and he 
 unites baptism with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, 
 together : which, if your argument is of any weight, 
 might also be used against you in another way; inas- 
 much as it might be contended, that if fire means a 
 quality, influence, or power, the Holy Spirit must also ; 
 and therefore both must be mere qualities, influences, 
 or powers. 
 
 You have stated, I suppose inadvertently, that 
 the apostles implore benediction from three ; by which 
 of course must be intended from three persons. This 
 assertion, if well founded, would lead every one, at first 
 view, to suppose that the apostles prayed to all three 
 for benediction, and therefore would be very likely to 
 mislead: but where I am to look for any instances of the 
 apostles having implored benediction from three, you 
 have not done me the favour to say ; and I am obliged 
 to observe, that though I have sought diligently, I 
 have not been able to find any such. The only texts 
 of Scripture which it has been in my power to disco- 
 ver, as being at all likely to have suggested such a 
 remark, are 2 Cor. xiii. 14, and Rev. i. 4. The first 
 is a pious and affectionate wish, expressed by the apo- 
 stle Paul at the conclusion of his second epistle to the 
 Corinthians, that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
 
 265 
 
 and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Spirit, might be with all his Corinthian disciples. 
 But this proves nothing like it; being neither a prayer 
 to, nor an imploring any thing from, the Holy Spirit; 
 but a kind and friendly wish or desire for the partici- 
 pation of the Holy Spirit by all of them ; not deter- 
 mining what is meant by the Spirit, but by the word 
 communion, or participation, raising a pretty strong 
 presumption, that all that was meant was a participa- 
 tion of miraculous powers, and not a participation of 
 a person, which would be an uncouth and unnatural 
 expression, to say the least of it. 
 
 It has been said that this wish includes a prayer ; 
 but this is a mere gratis dictum, without any proof. 
 The words themselves declare it to be a mere good 
 wish at the conclusion of a letter ; just as we con- 
 clude our letters to our friends about Christmas, with 
 " many happy returns of the season to you," or " I 
 wish you many happy returns of the season," It may, 
 or it may not, have been accompanied by a prayer ; 
 and that prayer, if there was any, may have been to 
 the Father, for their all enjoying a participation of his 
 holy spirit, or inspiration of miraculous power, as we 
 know that many of them did : but as nothing is said 
 about any prayer, we have no right to conclude that 
 the wish in question was accompanied by any. 
 
 It is impossible to present a juster view of this pas- 
 sage than is done by Mr. Yates in his Vindication, 
 p. 156 : " Instead of giving any support, even in the
 
 266 
 
 way of remote allusion, or inference, to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, this passage bears directly against it. 
 Three distinct beings are mentioned in the benedic- 
 tion. One of them is called God. Since therefore we 
 know that ' there is none other God but one,' it ne- 
 cessarily follows that the two other beings are not God. 
 If all be equally God, why is the title applied to one 
 of them only ? 
 
 " * The communion of the Holy Spirit be with you 
 all,' implies that the Holy Spirit does not in this in- 
 stance mean God, or any person. What can possibly 
 be intended by the communion of God ? Is God di- 
 vided? Can we partake of God, or of any person? 
 JSio: but we may partake of powers, energies, and in- 
 fluences :, we may enjoy a communion of spiritual 
 gifts. As in Phil. iii. 10, 'the communion of the suf- 
 ferings of Christ' means a participation in his suffer- 
 ings; so here, and in Phil. ii. 1, * the communion of 
 the spirit' signifies a participation in spiritual gifts and 
 influences. We may enjoy a communion of gifts 
 WITH persons ; but a participation of a person is an 
 idea which cannot enter the mind." 
 
 The text Rev. i. 4, contains a similar wish expressed 
 by the writer of that book, whoever he was, whether 
 John the Apostle, or John the Divine, is not clearly 
 ascertained, for grace and peace to be unto the seven 
 Asiatic churches, whom he addresses, from nine, in- 
 stead of three; that is, " from him which is, and which 
 was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits
 
 267 
 
 which are before his throne ; and from Jesus Christ, 
 who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten from 
 the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.** 
 This text, instead of proving the personality of the 
 Holy Spirit, says nothing about it. It contains, like 
 the former, a pious and friendly wish, and nothing 
 more, for grace and peace to the seven churches, from 
 God, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and 
 from Jesus Christ ; but omits the Holy Spirit entirely; 
 and is in fact the strongest text that can be produced, 
 to shew the absurdity of concluding, because three or 
 more persons are mentioned or joined together in the 
 same verse, or upon the same occasion, that there- 
 fore they must be one, or be equal, or because one of 
 them is God, all the rest must be God. I am aware 
 that an unfounded assertion has been made, that the 
 seven spirits is an emblematical expression for the 
 Holy Spirit; but there is no proof of it. On the 
 other hand, our Lord is represented as explaining, 
 (ver. 20 of the same chapter,) that the seven stars men- 
 tioned in the preceding part of the chapter are not 
 one, but the angels of the seven churches ; and that 
 the seven candlesticks there also mentioned, are the 
 seven churches : and in chap. iii. ver. 1, says that he 
 (Christ) hath the seven spirits of God, and the seven 
 stars. And throughout this part of the book, the pro- 
 phecies which he delivered are represented to be, what 
 the Spirit, in the singular number, (being always thus 
 distinguished from the seven spirits, and meaning the
 
 268 
 
 miraculous spirit of prophecy) says, that is, by him, 
 unto the churches. But if the seven spirits are an em- 
 blematical representation of the Holy Spirit, it would 
 appear not to be a person, but the spirit of prophecy ; 
 and would not, any more than the text 2 Cor. xiii. 14, 
 furnish the slightest proof either of personality, unity, 
 equality, or godhead. 
 
 I shall merely add here, that if the writer of this 
 book, who ascribes glory and praise to the Father and 
 the Son in various places, had considered, and intended 
 to represent, the Spirit to be a person, and to be God 
 equal to, and as much entitled to glory and praise as 
 either of them ; it is utterly incredible that he should 
 Always have omitted him upon these occasions, and 
 treated him as if neither glory nor praise was due to. 
 him. How can this be accounted for upon Trinita- 
 rian principles? 
 
 How the unity, equality, or godhead, of persons is 
 to be proved by our being commanded to reverence 
 and obey them in different parts of Scripture, is be- 
 yond my comprehension. The Jews were commanded 
 to reverence and to obey God, and also to reverence and 
 obey Moses and the Prophets ; but this did not prove 
 the unity or equality of the latter with the former. 
 They were also, as we are, required to reverence and 
 obey the commandments of God, and consequently 
 the spirit, power, or influence of God, speaking mi- 
 raculously by his holy messengers and prophets. But' 
 neither did this prove that this spirit, power, or in-
 
 269 
 
 fluence, was a person; or, if it were, that he was.equal 
 to God. 
 
 I do not consider myself called upon in this place 
 to produce the numerous and strong proofs of the im- 
 personality of the Holy Spirit which the Scriptures 
 supply us with ; because you have not, in my judge- 
 ment, advanced any thing like proof of its being a 
 person at all, much less of its being a person equal to 
 the great God and Father of all. Its impersonality 
 has, however, been successfully shewn by others, and 
 much more ably than I could do it. I shall therefore 
 say no more upon the subject, than that if it were a per- 
 son, it could not be omniscient, because no one but 
 the Father knows the day of judgement. It could not 
 be omnipotent, because no one but the Father hath 
 power to appoint to places on the right hand and left 
 hand of Christ in his future kingdom. It could not 
 be a proper object of religious worship, because nei- 
 ther our Lord nor his apostles ever prayed to it, or 
 ever required any one else to pray to it : but, on the 
 contrary, our Lord has directed us, when we pray, to 
 pray to the . Father, and never directed us to pray to 
 any other. Eveiy attempt therefore to prove that such 
 a person as this, a person to whom no one in the 
 time of our Lord or his apostles ever prayed ; a per- 
 son to whom there is no ascription of praise or glory 
 in the whole Bible, if there really were such a person, 
 -is equal to the great, self-existent, omniscient and 
 omnipotent God and Father of all, who is above all,
 
 and tlirough all, and in us all ; must, in my humble 
 apprehension, totally fail. 
 
 Your remark, that " it is well known that Lucian 
 ridiculed the Christians, just as some iiow taunt the 
 Trinitarians, for making three to be one and one 
 three," requires particular attention ; as it is calculated 
 to make us suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 was the belief of the Christians, or the great body of 
 Christians, at a much earlier period than was really the 
 case. The passage you allude to is in the Philopatris, 
 which is usually published with Lucian's Dialogues, 
 and is as follows : Koci tivx STfo^ua-o^ixi ys ; T^/. v\l>i- 
 ju-fScwa Seov, psyav, ay.&poTOv, ovpavicaycc, viov Trccrgcc, 
 Trvsvpoc SK Trctrpog K7ropVou.svoy, Iv ex. Tpiuv, Kott s^ Ivog 
 rpioc TOCVTOC vopi^s.- Zyvoc rcvcT yyou ^scy. K^)/. 
 
 o T&pu(r^vog. Ovx. oi^ct yap n hsystc, Iv 
 rp/a, Tpioc Iv. Here, one of the speakers bidding the 
 other to swear "by the Supreme God, by the Son of the 
 Father, and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, 
 one out of three, and three out of one, and to consider 
 it as being Jupiter; the other answers, You make me 
 have recourse to numeration, and give me an arith- 
 metical oath. I know not what you say, one three, 
 and three one." 
 
 This passage you have alluded to, I have no doubt, 
 under a full belief of its having been written by Lucian, 
 for the purpose of making the same impression upon 
 my mind as it evidently had upon yours, that the
 
 271 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity was the common faith of the 
 Christians as early as the time of the Emperor Trajan, 
 or about the year 113, when Lucian flourished. Had 
 that writer been the author of it, however, we should 
 have had no right to say that it was written to ridi- 
 cule the Christians ; for he does not tell us so : and 
 there is ample evidence that the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity was not believed by the great body, or majority 
 of Christians, till long after, probably not for two cen- 
 turies after that time. We should not therefore, if 
 Lucian had been the writer of this Dialogue, have been 
 entitled to say that its object was to ridicule the Chris- 
 tians ; but more probably to laugh at certain Chris- 
 tians, some philosophizing Christian writers of the 
 day, for instance, who had, by their writings, brought 
 themselves into the notice of the literary men of that 
 period, and had, at least as the author of the Dialogue 
 thought, rendered themselves ridiculous, and fair game 
 for satire, by the singularity and extravagance of their 
 theories. But to form an opinion of what Christianity 
 really was, or what was the belief of the great body of 
 the Christian world at that time, from an obscure 
 passage in the writings of an enemy to Christianity ; 
 whose object, after all, might have been only to ridi- 
 cule a few individuals ; would be too much like judg- 
 ing of our Lord's doctrines and conduct, as has been 
 too often done, by partially quoting another dialogue, 
 namely, that between him and the Jews, recorded by 
 St. John in the 10th chapter of his Gospel, from the
 
 accusations of his enemies, who were continually mis- 
 representing him. And if the satire only applied t to 
 certain individuals amongst the Christians, who had 
 advanced very strange notions, which the majority of 
 them did not believe, the ridiculing of them, and their 
 doctrines, could no more be said to be ridiculing the 
 Christians, than ridiculing the absurd doctrines, or 
 ridiculous practices, of any sect of Christians in more 
 modern times; such as transubstantiation, flagellation, 
 religious jumping, &c. &c. &c. could in the present 
 day. We might perhaps, had we lived in those times, 
 have been tempted to smile at any one, who should 
 have proposed to us an arithmetical oath, which we 
 had never heard of before. 
 
 I am under the necessity, however, of divesting this 
 passage of the supposed antiquity which you have 
 assigned to it, and referring it to a much later period, 
 by stating, that in the judgement of the most eminent 
 critics, the Philopatris in which it is found is not the 
 work of Lucian, not like his writings, either in lan- 
 guage, style, or manner ; but the production of a very 
 inferior writer, and of a much later date. Mr. Moyle 
 thinks it to have been written in the time of Diocle- 
 tian, or about the year 302. Gesner, not till the 
 reign of the Emperor Julian, after the middle of the 
 fourth century. And even Mr. Dodwell's opinion, which 
 ascribes to it an earlier date, does not carry it back 
 further than the reign of Gallienus, about the year 
 262 ; about which time we know that the doctrine of
 
 the Trinity had made considerable progress amongst 
 the philosophizing Christians of those times. Under 
 such circumstances it is obvious, that even if it could 
 be depended upon to shew what was the belief of the 
 Christians then, it could be no authority whatever, to 
 prove what it was in the time of Lucian, or for more 
 than a century and a half after. But whenever, or 
 by whomsoever, it was written, it has some awkward 
 features, when compared with the Trinity of subse- 
 quent times, which renders it a most inauspicious 
 passage for a modern Trinitarian to deal with ; for it 
 establishes the supremacy of the Father as the doc- 
 trine of the persons alluded to, whoever they were, 
 describing one of the persons mentioned in it, as the 
 supreme, sovereign, or reigning God, which implies 
 his superiority over the other two, who are not stated 
 to be equal to him : and though the one out of three, 
 and three out of one, which is no very intelligible de- 
 scription, were to be considered Jupiter; yet we have 
 no information how, or in what sense, the three were 
 produced out of one, or what kind of union there was 
 between the three, to make one out of them. The 
 modern doctrine of the Trinity supposes the three to 
 be in one ; but this writer's description is a barbarous 
 jumble, which though possibly not more absurd than 
 some other theories, yet being more unusual to us, 
 strikes us as more uncouth and ridiculous. The ma- 
 jor part of the present race of Trinitarians, who either 
 belong to, or have emanated from, the Church of 
 
 T
 
 274 
 
 Rome, will also not know what to make of this writer's 
 description of the Spirit, as proceeding from the Fa- 
 ther only, whom they always describe as proceeding 
 from the Father and the Son. 
 
 Before I close this article, it will be incumbent upon 
 me, in proof of some of the remarks I have made, to 
 produce a passage from Tertullian (one of the Latin 
 fathers), who lived towards the conclusion of the se- 
 cond century, and at least half a century later than 
 Lucian, to shew that the doctrine of the Trinity was 
 not held by the majority of Christians in his time ; 
 adding to it two others from Origen' (one of the Greek 
 fathers) to the like effect. 
 
 The words of Tertullian are : " Simplices enim 
 quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae major 
 semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula 
 dei a pluribus diis seculi, ad unicum et Deum veruin, 
 transfer! ; non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum 
 sua oeconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeco- 
 nomiam. Numerum et dispositionem Trinitatis, di- 
 visionem praesumunt Unitatis ; quando Unitas, ex se- 
 metipsa derivans Trinitatem, non destruatur ab ilia, 
 sed administretur. Itaque duos, et tres jam jactitant 
 a nobis praedicari ; se vero unius Dei cultores praesu- 
 mant. Quasi non et Unitas inrationaliter collects 
 haeresim faciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expensa verita- 
 tem eonstituat. Monarchiam, inquiunt^ tenemus. Et 
 ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam 
 Opici, ut putes illos tarn bene intelligere Monarchiani
 
 quam enunciant. Sed Monarchiam sonare student La- 
 tini, osconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Graeci." Ad 
 Praxeam, sect. 3, p. 502. "Common persons, not to 
 say the uninformed and unlettered, who are always the 
 major part of believers, because the rule of faith itself 
 transfers from the many gods of the world to the only 
 true God, not understanding that the only God is to 
 be believed, but with his oeconomy, dread the cecono- 
 my. They presume the number and disposition of a 
 Trinity, to be a division of the Unity; when the Unity, 
 deriving from itself a Trinity, is not destroyed, but 
 governed by it. They therefore now boast> that two, 
 and even three gods, are preached by us ; but presume 
 themselves to be worshippers of one God ; as if the 
 Unity irrationally comprehended did not make heresy, 
 and the Trinity rationally considered constitute truth. 
 We, they say, hold the Monarchy; and even the La- 
 tins, even the unlearned, so loudly express the word, 
 that you might think they understood the Monarchy, 
 as well as they pronounce it. But the Latins delight 
 to bawl out the Monarchy, and even the Greeks will 
 not understand the (Economy." 
 
 From this passage it appears that Tertullian felt 
 somewhat mortified, and complained rather angrily, 
 that the majority of Christians in his time, both Latins 
 and Greeks, were terrified at the Trinity, even such as 
 it was then, considering it to be an infringement or 
 division of the Unity ; and charged him and his learned 
 brethren, who laboured to introduce and nfake it ge-
 
 276 
 
 neral among them, with being worshippers of two, and 
 even three gods, holding themselves out to be the wor- 
 shippers of one God, in opposition to the learned fa- 
 ther and his coadjutors in those unpopular proceedings. 
 
 We are much obliged to the learned father for his 
 fact ; but when he appeals to reason, and speaks of 
 what is rational and irrational, we can reason as well 
 as he, and are not afraid to enter the lists with him ; 
 no, nor to pronounce that the plain unlettered men, 
 whom he, by a kind of side wind, accuses of having ir- 
 rationally comprehended the Unity, had more rational 
 views upon the subject than himself. Their ideas of 
 the Unity of the Deity as being unequivocally and 
 strictly one, the monarch, or sole ruler of the universe, 
 is consonant to every principle of true reason and sound 
 philosophy. The mind assents at once, without dif- 
 ficulty, without requiring any laboured explanations or 
 subtleties to make us comprehend it. But at the idea 
 of three being one, as has been justly observed, reason 
 stands aghast, and no human mind can be reconciled 
 to it, who has not been brought up in the belief of it, 
 or been overpowered by a multitude of nice and ela- 
 borate refinements and distinctions. 
 
 The following passage from Origen, who, though 
 partly contemporary with Tertullian, lived some years 
 later, manifests the very same state of things, or one 
 very similar to it, wlien he wrote ; so as to take away 
 all doubt of what his meaning and that of Tertullian 
 was, and. what was the belief of the multitude in the
 
 277 
 
 Christian world, at the times they respectively com- 
 posed the works in which these passages are found. 
 His words are, OUTOJ TOIVVV 01 pzv itvsg fj-STs^ovtriv &VTOV 
 
 Aoytf KCCI vrgog TOV Qsov, K<XL sx Aoy8, 
 KCXI tlarcticcSj KOCI Isgepiag, Kctt si rig sts^og r 
 7raf>sa~Tr,trsv w$ rov hoyov x.i>p/ou, y TO 
 c-9cci vrpog avTOv" 'Erfpci S= ol JA'tj<Kv si^orsg, si 
 
 KOil TOVTOV <TT<XV(>hJ[JLEVCV, TOV '/SVOfjLSVOV (TCCgKOC 
 TO 7T(XV VO^lCoVTSg SIVOil TOV fayO'J Xp/CTTOV KtXTOC 
 
 povov yivt*}<7Kov<ri' TOUTO $z f err/ TO TrXqQog TTSTT/- 
 C-TSVKSVUI vopifypsvuv. Com. in Joh. v. 2. p. 49. "There 
 are, who partake of the Logos, which was from the be- 
 ginning, the Logos that was with God, and the Logos 
 that was God, as Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and 
 any other that speaks of him, as the Logos of God, or 
 the Logos that was with him. But there are others 
 who know nothing, but of Jesus Christ, and him cru- 
 cified, the Logos that was flesh ; thinking that they 
 have every thing of the Logos, when they acknowledge 
 Christ according to the flesh. Such is the multitude 
 of those who are called Christians." 
 
 He afterwards says : T# 5 TrA^ TUV TreTrurrsvxevxi 
 
 VCptCQp&UV TYl (TKIMTOV AoyCU, KDil &%/ T60 fcX^f/lfc) foyti) 
 
 sv T>I ocvsuyoTt xgocvoo Tvyfctxvon i fjiaQtiTzusTai. "The 
 multitudes of believers are instructed in the shadow of 
 the Logos, and not in the true Logos of God, which 
 is in the open heaven." Com. in Joh. v. 2. p. 52. 
 Now how could it possibly have happened, that the 
 
 H| 
 
 multitudes that is the great body of believers- were
 
 278 
 
 instructed only in the shadow of the Logos ; and not 
 in the true Logos ? Our Lord emphatically declared 
 that his Gospel was preached to the poor ; that is, to 
 the great mass of mankind ; and, as if to take away all 
 pretence for supposing that any thing was to be kept 
 back, expressly commanded his apostles, " that what 
 he had told them in darkness, they should speak in 
 light ; that what they had heard in the ear, they should 
 proclaim upon the house-tops." Matt. x. 27. And 
 that they should preach the Gospel to every creature: 
 Mark xvi. 15. The apostles on their parts appear to 
 have acted in obedience to these commandments. They 
 did not content themselves with preaching a part of it 
 only to every creature. They did not rob the poor of 
 the best part of their spiritual food, concealing from 
 the multitude the most material doctrines of the go- 
 spel. On the contrary, their converts were assured 
 that they had declared to them the whole counsel of 
 God. When was it then that the knowledge of the 
 true Logos began to be concealed, and only the shadow 
 of the Logos to be preached? and how could the minds 
 of the multitude, who had once learnt the doctrine of 
 the true Logos from our Lord and his apostles and their 
 immediate successors, be ever divested of it again ? 
 What was to prevent them from teaching it to their 
 children, and they to their children ? Was there any 
 precept in Scripture forbidding it ? Who can avoid be- 
 lieving then, that, the true Logos having been preach- 
 ed by our Lord and his followers to the multitude, the
 
 279 
 
 latter were well instructed in it : but that by degrees, 
 some of the more learned and philosophical Christians 
 hud adopted different ideas concerning it, and had ta- 
 ken it into their heads to fancy that the true Logos 
 was something which the great mass of Christians in 
 those days had not been taught, did not understand, 
 and would not acknowledge ; and which none of these 
 supereminently learned teachers, who imagined them- 
 selves so much better informed than the rest of their 
 Christian brethren, could venture to instruct them in ? 
 
 The same learned writer had before given a pretty 
 striking proof of the prudent caution which at that time 
 it was found necessary to observe in this respect, in the 
 following words : Kar TOVTO $e etievoii %>jy> OTI wrTrtp 
 <rn vopog <TKIUV TTU^S^UV TUV ^AA.ovTwv aya^wv, VTTO 
 cvXyQsictv xarayyeAAc/xfvi? vopov d^ov^svotiV) OVT& 
 svcfyyshiov a~Kictv yxucmjp/wv X^/CTTOU <^acr;te/, TO yo- 
 VTTO vravTuv rwv fVTV/^fxvovT^y vosia-Qcct' 'O 3s 
 -cv \bjotvwig svayyshiov oticoviov, oix.iu$ oev fayflqcropi- 
 vov TrvsvpoiTiKcv, trottyug 7rot{>i<rTq<rt toig vo&cr/ TCC TTIXVTCC 
 tvwniovTrtpt viov TOV Ssov* Atowsp ctvcryKixiov TrvsvpaTDtus, 
 KKI (TOO pur iKoo g x J pia-Tiuvt > iv Kut OTTOV psv %f>? TO (rw^a- 
 KS^va-<rsiv woc'yy&ioy, (fioca-KovTcc juojSsv st&evoct rots 
 
 Ivj(TOVV Xf/CTTOV KCCl TOVTOV 0~TC(Vf>W[Jt.VOV, TOV 
 TOV 7l~Of/TSOV STTOtV 5s 
 
 sv auTw, spuvTSg TOV ovpuvtov 
 ctVTOig TOV Aoyoy STravsX^ovTOf CCTTO TOV 
 stf? o yv sv cep%yi Trgog TOV Ssov* " This we ought 
 to understand, that as the Law was a shadow of good
 
 280 
 
 things to come, so the Gospel teaches a shadow of the 
 mysteries of Christ, as it is considered to be understood 
 by the generality. But that which John calls the 
 everlasting Gospel, and which may be more properly 
 called the spiritual, instructs the intelligent very clearly 
 concerning the Son of Gfo4. Therefore the Gospe* 
 must be taught both corporeally and spiritually ; and 
 when it is necessary we must preach the corporeal go- 
 spel, saying to .the carnal., that we know nothing but 
 Jesus Christ, and him crucified: but when persons are 
 found confirmed in the Spirit, bringing forth fruit in 
 it, and in love with heavenly wisdom,, we must impart 
 to them the Logos returning from his bodily state, in 
 that in which he was jn the beginning with God." 
 Com. in John, vol. ii. p. 9. 
 
 To what can we ascribe this curious caution, if the 
 great body of Christians were at that time Trinitarians, 
 or the belief of the Trinity was then considered neces- 
 sary to salvation ? Had either been the case, why 
 should this venerable Father and their other instruc- 
 tors have hesitated to preach to all Christians truly ', 
 and explicitly, those great truths which it was of so 
 much importance for them all to be well acquainted 
 with, that their eternal salvation depended upon their 
 knowing and believing them ? Why should they have 
 hesitated a moment to declare to them, as the apo- 
 stles have told us that they did to the Christians in 
 their time, the whole counsel of God ? Their neglect- 
 }ng so to do was, upon this supposition, not only a,
 
 281 
 
 highly criminal breach of a most solemn duty, but a 
 breach of duty committed without any rational mo- 
 tive : but if the great majority of Christians in those 
 days were not Trinitarians, but on the contrary adverse 
 to the introduction even of those doctrines which led 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity, the problem is solved at 
 once. If their minds would have been shocked at any 
 thing inconsistent with the monarchy of the Father, it 
 will be obvious that the learned writer knew full well, 
 that had he ventured to speak out, like Tertullian, to 
 the mixed multitude of Greek Christians, with whom 
 he was conversant, he would have heard their voices 
 raised as loudly in favour of the monarchy of the Fa- 
 ther, as Tertullian had those of the Latins. He there- 
 fore took a more prudent course. 
 
 The refined speculations of this eloquent and learn- 
 ed writer, and other men of superior learning who had 
 adopted similar opinions, were not calculated to meet 
 the public ear in that early age : no, these their doc- 
 trines were to be preached only to those whose minds 
 had been prepared for them, to the chosen few, who 
 had been initiated privately into these abstruse myste- 
 ries ; but were not to be hazarded before the multitude, 
 who knew nothing about them, and would, it was well 
 known, have instantly rejected them, had they been 
 publicly preached. By degrees, however, more and 
 more would be brought over by men of literary cha- 
 racter and attainments ; and the new system, if it did 
 not originate from, bearing at least a very considerable
 
 282 
 
 resemblance to, the doctrines of Plato and other phi- 
 losophers (which were then held in great estimation 
 amongst the higher classes of mankind, a large pro- 
 portion of whom, though they joined in the idolatrous 
 worship then established by law in their respective 
 countries, had notwithstanding embraced these philo- 
 sophical tenets respecting the Deity) ; being also on 
 account of this resemblance likely to be eagerly adopt- 
 ed by those who were converted to Christianity from 
 these classes, and consequently to gain ground over 
 what was considered to be the belief of the vulgar ; 
 might be expected to become, at last, the system of 
 the majority, or at least of the majority of those who 
 had much influence in the Christian world : and when 
 in another hundred years this had actually taken place, 
 we hear of no more caution upon the subject ; but on 
 the contrary, they who did not embrace the prevailing 
 creed were stigmatized without any reserve, in direct 
 and express terms, as heretics ; and, when their ad- 
 versaries had obtained the assistance of the temporal 
 power, persecuted, and at length even put to death, 
 without mercy. 
 
 Though I agree with you, that we are not to con- 
 sider the Fathers as authorities in the interpretation 
 of the Scriptures, but are bound to examine and judge 
 for ourselves : yet we cannot avoid considering their 
 testimony to be of great weight, when they are rela- 
 ting matters of fact; more especially when they are 
 facts militating against their own particular opinions y
 
 283 
 
 which, we mustbear in mind too, shocking as they then 
 appeared to the great hody of plain unlettered Chris- 
 tians, who at that time constituted the majority of be- 
 lievers, were much less calculated to shock their minds 
 than those which succeeded them in the course of an- 
 other century ; as one corruption paved the way for, 
 and was closely followed by another : for the Trinity 
 of the Fathers of that period, as declared by themselves 
 (of which I can produce very clear and satisfactory 
 proofs from their own writings), consisted of three 
 unequal persons, of whom the Father was supreme. 
 
 We have therefore, first, the joint testimony of some 
 of the Fathers of that early age, and of the great body, 
 or multitude, of Christians whose sentiments they have 
 favoured us with, that the doctrine of the Trinity was 
 not at that time the belief of the Christians ; and 2dly 
 the testimony of the former, that such a Trinity as is 
 now believed was not the belief even of themselves, 
 who ranked among the learned and philosophical part 
 of the Christian community. Of what value then, in 
 opposition to all this, would such an obscure passage 
 have been, had it been, as you have supposed, the 
 production of Lucian himself? but considered as writ- 
 ten by nobody knows whom, who flourished nobody 
 knows when, and lived nobody knows where, it sinks 
 at once into complete insignificance, ; 
 
 Such proofs as this, of dubious origin, and of no au- 
 thority, dug up at random from the mouldering rub- 
 bish of antiquity, are like certain dead bodies, which
 
 284 
 
 having been buried for centuries in spots particularly 
 favourable to the partial preservation of the human 
 form, though on being accidentally disinterred they 
 present at first view an appearance most perfect, fresh, 
 and fair, yet will not bear handling ; but the moment 
 the*y are touched, crumble into dust. 
 
 Haying now answered, article by article, every ar- 
 gument which your Letter contains in favour of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, J hasten with peculiar pleasure 
 to unite with you in your truly excellent and pious 
 wish or prayer, " May the God of truth afford us grace 
 to discover and embrace the truth, and lead us to those 
 views which he best approves, and which will most pro* 
 mote his glory in our salvation !" 
 
 I shall be always most happy to hear from you on 
 these, or any other subjects.: assuring you that the 
 freedom which inseparably belongs to a fair and pro- 
 per discussion of the points upon which we may hap- 
 pen to differ, will never, in the slightest degree, inter- 
 fere with the high opinion I have always entertained 
 of you as a man and a Christian, increased by that 
 friendly solicitude for my welfare which has given birth 
 to the present amicable controversy between us. The 
 time, we know, will arrive, when we shall all be of one 
 heart and one mind, which God will bring about in its 
 proper season, as to all men. The more speedily it 
 takes place as to ourselves in particular, the greater 
 reason we shall have to rejoice, and to bless his name, 
 \vhose mercy endureth for ever.
 
 255 
 
 Sincerely wishing you a complete restoration to 
 health, and the full enjoyment of all the blessings 
 which the religion established by our great Lord and 
 Master Jesus Christ is calculated to produce, as well 
 in this world as in that which is to come, I am, 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Yours most truly and faithfully
 
 A FOURTH 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 A PROTESTANT DIVINE, 
 
 trefence of QKmtartamem ; 
 
 Bv another BARRISTER. 
 
 Magna est veritas ct prccvalcbit. 
 
 iLori&on : 
 
 PRIXTED BY RICHARD TAYLOR, SHOU-LANM-: : 
 
 AND SOLD BY R. HUNTER, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD ; AND 
 BY D, EATON, 1S7, HIGH HO) HORN. 
 
 1824.
 
 IV ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FOURTH LETTER. 
 
 tion of the theological and miscellaneous works of 
 Dr. Priestley now publishing, Mr. Rutt, for the very 
 correct information, that the spurious text mentioned, 
 page 231, as having had so much influence on the 
 mind of that excellent and liberal-minded Trinita- 
 rian, the late Dr. Doddridge, was not, as the Author 
 had apprehended, 1 John v. 7. the Doctor having in- 
 serted that text between brockets, and referred to it 
 as doubtful; but another, namely, Rev. i. 11. "I 
 am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," which 
 we have the authority of Archbishop Newcome, and 
 Griesbach, and the host of MSS. cited by the latter, 
 for pronouncing to be equally spurious, and striking 
 it out altogether, as they have both done. Though 
 this does not in the least affect the Author's argu- 
 ment, which the Doctor's reliance upon either text 
 will support, yet he is happy to be afforded an oppor- 
 tunity of doing justice to the memory of Dr.Doddridge, 
 who, it certainly appears, did not rely upon 1 John v. 
 7. when, in consequence of the strong and well found- 
 ed remarks of Sir Isaac Newton against its authen- 
 ticity, it had ceased to be quoted as an authority, by 
 most judicious critics, though it was not then so uni- 
 versally exploded, as it has been since it received the 
 coup de grace from the hands of the late Professor 
 Porson.
 
 XXV 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 J. HE Author, in reply to the Divine's fourth letter, shows that Origen differed 
 from him entirely, by absolutely denying that the Scriptures apply the ar- 
 ticle to &MS, when speaking of Christ, but to the Father only : and that both 
 he, and Eusebius, lay it down, that Christ was not God over all ; but that 
 this was the peculiar title of the Father, p. 287. The doctrine of the Trinity 
 having made considerable advances in Origen's time, he believed Christ to be 
 God, but to be inferior to the Father. The Trinity then very different from 
 that of modern times, p. 288. The author's quotation from Origen, a com- 
 plete answer to the Divine's positions, that o &sos, God, with the article, is ap- 
 plicable to Christ, and that the Fathers considered the absence of the article 
 no evidence of the reading a God. p. 288. Reply to the statement, that the 
 author objects to the authenticity of the two first chapters of Matthew contrary 
 to the evidence of MSS. and the testimony of history, and to GriesbiJcb. p. 289. 
 The author opposes to their authenticity, not only earlier MSS. than those 
 collated by Griesbach ; but the testimony of persons living at the time of our 
 Saviour, who knew him well, and contradicted the story of the miraculous 
 conception contained in them. If the statements in these chapters had been 
 true, our Lord could never have been supposed to have been the sou of 
 Joseph, nor could his brothers and sisters have been ignorant that he was the 
 Messiah, p. 289. 290. He also opposes to their authenticity, the entire si- 
 lence that prevails in every other part of the New Testament as to the whole 
 of their contents, p. 291. Also the absurd, ridiculous and puerile nature of 
 many of the accounts contained in them, as well as their contradicting each 
 other, and other parts of Scripture, p. 292. The author vindicates his remark, 
 that the title, The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, is 
 not at all fit to be the title of the whole work, showing that the Divine's refe- 
 rence to the book of Genesis is not at all in point, and why the five books of 
 Moses were called by their present Hebrew names, p. 292-3. That Matthew 
 wrote but one GospeJ, which had a little that suited the whole of it, if we re- 
 ject the two first chapters, and their unnecessary and incongruous title, p. 294. 
 Absurdity of retaining them and following the rule adopted for the title of 
 the book of Genesis. Ib. Setting aside these two chapters and the two first 
 chapters ascribed to Luke, to which there are equal objections, it will appear 
 that all the Gospels begin about the same time, namely, the preaching of 
 John the Baptist, before which nothing was known of Christ personally as such, 
 no not by John himself, who was not acquainted with his person, whioh is 
 incredible if the two supposed first chapters of Luke ace genuine, p. 29/>.
 
 XXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 St. Matthew's Gospel, without the two supposed first chapters, may have a 
 proper commencement, ar.d will begin at the same period as the other Go- 
 spels, namely, with the words, " In those days came John the Baptist preach- 
 ing,'' which words shew, that the two preceding chapters formed no part of 
 the original Gospel, and why. p. 296. Vindication of the author's remarks 
 upon the statement, relative to the fourteen generations, p. '297. The re- 
 jection of this account no reason for rejecting other paiis of Scripture, p. 298. 
 -Refutation of the hypothesis, that the genealogy of Matthew is not irrecon- 
 cileable with that of Luke upon the imaginary ground, that they refer to dif- 
 ferent views of the Saviour's descent, that from his less remote ancestor, by 
 the supposed father, and that from the more remote, by his mother, shewing 
 that the first of these views gives no genealogy of Jesus at all, but that each 
 of them gives a genealogy of Joseph, the former through the Royal line of 
 Jewish kings, and the latter through a totally different line, without a single 
 king among them. There is no proof that Mary was the daughter of Heli, nor 
 is Luke's genealogy the genealogy of Mary. p. 298. Idle story of a Rabbi 
 having called her the daughter of Heli. Improbability of any Rabbi having 
 ever said so, or of Luke, who gives it expressly as the genealogy of Joseph, 
 Laving intended it for the genealogy of Mary, whom he does not mention or 
 allude to. p. 299. Reasons for believing the words j iv/>/j,iZ,t<ro, in the third 
 chapter of Luke, if rightly translated ' as was supposed,' to have been inter- 
 polated by the person who added the two iirst chapters, p. 300. Luke's de- 
 sign to give the real, and not the supposed, genealogy of Jesus. The words 
 us m/JuT^i, translated by some, ' as he was supposed,' and in opposition to what 
 opinions, p. 301. Extraordinary that any writer should give a supposed 
 genealogy, when he was well acquainted with, and could as easily have given, 
 the true one. Not to be inferred that it was the genealogy of Mary in con- 
 tradiction to St. Luke from a ridiculous story told of an unknown Rabbi, p. 302. 
 The Greek Christians for whom Luke wrote, could never have conceived, 
 that when tracing the genealogy of Jesus up to David from whose loins he 
 was to spiing, he would do it through Joseph his father in laiv, from whose 
 loins he did not spring. If the Jewish custom was to trace their genealogies 
 through the males only, it must have been violated in this instance. How jt 
 ought to have been framed to prove him descended from David through a fe- 
 male, p. 303. The genealogies irreconcileably at variance with each other. 
 p, 304. As both cannot be true, we must make our election, which must be 
 in favour of the undisputed part of Luke. Ib. So as to the discrepancies be- 
 tween Kings and Chronicles, p. 305. Importance and necessity of shewing 
 both to Jews and Gentiles, that our Lord was in point of fact descended from 
 David, and not merely acknowledged to be so upon record, though not so in 
 reality, p. 305. The records not shewing our Lord to be the son of David, 
 except as the son of Joseph, if this be not true, they dnot shew him to be so 
 at all. The genealogy in Luke says nothing of his mother, nor does the sup- 
 posed first chapter of Matthew say that she was descended from David. If 
 Joseph's name was inserted only because he was the adopted son of Heli, tha
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV11 
 
 genealogy only shews Christ to have been the son of David by adoption, and 
 not to have been the fruit of his loins. The supposed records do not shew, 
 that Mary was either the daughter of Jacob in Matthew, or of Heli in Luke, 
 and therefore could not shew to the Jews that Jesus was descended from David 
 in any way. p. 306. Absurd to suppose that there were two different regis- 
 ters of one and the same person, p. 307. The Divine has for this purpose 
 translated u; ivaui'^ra ' as was legally acknowledged,' which the original will 
 hear ; but if the record acknowledged him to be the son of Joseph, no doubt it 
 was true, and he really was such. Besides, as the original will bear both in- 
 terpretations, the argument drawn from the former fails, p. 303. No proof 
 that Mary was known to be of the family of David. If any credit were due to 
 the supposed first chapter of Luke, it would be more likely that she was a 
 daughter of Aaron, p. 309. Difference between omitting the miraculous con- 
 ception, and other miraculous events in the four disputed chapters, and the 
 omitting; by one Evangelist a single miracle recorded by another, p. 309. 
 Miraculous conception not mentioned by the earliest and most eminent 
 Christians as a matter of notoriety, nor at all. p. 31 1. The Divine's singular 
 mode of accounting for none of the Jews having believed on our Lord when 
 he came forward as the Messiah, on account of any of the miraculous events 
 attending his birth, that most of those who were impressed by them were 
 then dead. p. 31 1. Reasons why this could not have been the case. p. 312. 
 And why these supposed events had no existence, p. 314. Utter inconsistency 
 of the accounts given of these transactions in the two supposed first chapters 
 of Matthew and the two supposed first chapters of Luke. p. 315. Absurdities 
 and impossibilities attending 1 the narrative in the supposed second chapter of 
 Luke of the taxation of the subjects of the Roman empire and of Joseph's going 
 up to Uethlehem with Mary to be taxed, and her there bringing forth our 
 Lord, which render it demonstrable that it never proceeded from the pen of 
 the Evangelist, or any one writing true history, p. 317. The passage John xii. 
 37-41, no proof that St. John believed Christ to be the Lord of Hosts. De- 
 sign of the Apostle in quoting Isaiah, not to prove that Christ was the Lord of 
 Hosts, but to account for the unbelief of the Jews. p. 324. Explanation of the 
 passage. Ib. Reasons however for considering the 39th and 40th verses to be 
 an interpolation, p. 325. Such an obscure reference made, if made at all, 
 for a different purpose, and surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not to 
 be dignified with the name of a proof ; but if such an amazing doctrine, as 
 Christ being the Lord of Hosts, be set up by mere inference, it may be re- 
 butted, and thrown down again, by a clearer and stronger inference, Heb. i. 1. 
 p. 32S. The author still maintains, that a prophecy that a virgin should 
 call her son Immanuel, would not be fulfilled by a virgin calling her son 
 Jesus, even if they meant the same thing, which they do not. p. 329. The 
 name Jehoshua not given to Oshea, when selected to become a type of Christ, 
 or a distinguished instrument to save Israel, it not being shewn that he was 
 selected to become a type of Christ at all. On the contrary, it was given to 
 him, when selected to be a tpy, and instead of saving Israel, the expedition
 
 XXVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 proved the destruction of all but two. p. 330. Saying that a prince shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counsellor, or the like, or that Jerusalem shall be called 
 Hephsibah, or Judea Beulah, and saying that a child about to be born shall 
 be called by his father or mother George or Charles, totally different things, 
 as our Lord's parents themselves shewed, p. 332. The time for Jerusalem 
 being called Hephsibah, and Judea Beulali, not yet arrived, p. 333. The 
 aign said to have been given Is. vii. 14. was a sign given to Ahaz himself, and 
 not to certain supposed pious Israelites then present, as imagined by the Di- 
 vine, p. 334. This not a new, or any promise of the Messiah, nor did the 
 supposed pious Israelites know that Palestine was to be secured to them, be- 
 cause he was to take our nature, nor was it in fact secured to them at all. p. 336. 
 Shear Jashub not the child alluded to. Ib. Nor was it prophesied that be- 
 fore a child to be born of a virgin should be as old as Shear Jashub was then, 
 the land abhorred should be forsaken, p. 337. That the mere repetition of an 
 old promise not yet performed, and not to be performed for centuries, was 
 proposed as a sign that a new promise should be performed very shortly, is 
 quite a visionary conjecture, p. 338. The author prefers the authorities he 
 mentions for translating the word in Is. 'young woman,' to the Divine's as- 
 sertion, that he has no doubt it is properly translated 'virgin.' p. 339. In the 
 7th chapter of Is. the child about to be born was to be called Immanuel as a 
 sign that God was with his countrymen the Jews. Their land is called in the 
 8th chapter Immanuel's land for the same reason, and in a similar manner 
 God is declared afterwards to be with them generally, whilst the only God 
 spoken of was the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the only 
 child referred to, a child then about to be born, who might be a sign that 
 God was then with them and not a child to be born hundreds of years after, 
 and not being then in existence, could not have been then with them. p. 339. 
 No allusion to any such imaginary person as a supposed pre-existing Divine 
 Logos, p. 341 . Sense of the Hebrew word mn, not shall conceive,' but ' has 
 conceived,' or taking it most favourably, 'is conceiving,' and therefore it cannot 
 refer to a virgin, much Jess to a virgin and child who were not to exist till 
 TOO years after, p. 341. The prediction appears with increasing evidence to 
 be no prediction of the Messiah at all. p. 342. The author's objections are 
 to the fact of the Incarnation. He has troubled himself but little about the 
 mode of existence of what he considers a non-entity. Convenient to the Divine 
 to pass over the author's arguments in opposition to the fact, which were the 
 strongest, and confine himself to the mode. Remarks upon what he says in 
 this respect, p. 342 It would be no proof that the account of the Incarnation 
 bears marks of genuine Scripture, that it does not attempt to explain the 
 mode. It does however make some attempts to ^o this. p. 344. The author 
 denying altogether that the Incarnation is to be found in Scripture, cannot 
 admit its existence for any ends of discipline alleged to be assigned in Scrip- 
 ture, as he can accountfor our Lord's dependence upon his Fatherin a way much 
 more easy and consonant to Scripture, namely, by his having been, what he 
 appeared to be, and was called, even after his Resurrection and Ascension, a
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXIX 
 
 man altogether, and by his Father then and still dwelling in him, and per- 
 forming all the wonderful works then, and still in progress, p. 345. Our 
 Lord, when he excludes himself, John vii. 16, from being the author of his doc- 
 trine, by saying- that it is not his, excludes also the Holy Ghost, by declaring 
 that it is His who sent him, which the Holy Ghost never did. p. 347. The 
 Divine misled by the common version of Heb. ii. 16, in supposing it to prove 
 that St. Paul was acquainted with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Remarks 
 upon this version. The word nature, not in tlie original. Other and more 
 literal versions of it, which destroy every vestige of an allusion to the incar- 
 nation or pre-existence of Christ, rendering stnAa^oavsraw ' succoureth', and 
 explainingthe Apostle's meaning more easilyandnaturally. p. 347. Examina- 
 tion of the 1 /th verse, which does not prove his pre- existence, he being made 
 like his brethren without having pre-existed, as man is made a little lower than 
 the Angels, without having pre-existed. Design of the writer to shew that 
 they were all made, and that all of them, that is Christ and his brethren, were 
 made men. The di>tinction throughout between Christ and the Angels, and 
 between the human race and the Angels. Reasons why Christ succoureth the 
 former and not the latter, p. 349. The second chapter of the Hebrews ad- 
 verse both to the incarnation and pre-existence of Christ, all the texts in it 
 proving him to have been a man, and nothing more. p. 33 J. The word yiinim 
 here rendered ' might BE.' In the 1 st chapter of John, where the same verb 
 is rendered ' made,' if that were right, it should be observed that as in Heb ii. 
 Christ is said to have been made a little lower than the Angels as other men 
 are, so in John he might be said to have been made flesh as other men are; 
 but tyivtTi requires no such meaning, but should be translated was. p. 352. 
 Other instances of its being so translated, p. 353. The Divine, by adopting 
 an erroneous translation of the 2nd chapter of the Hebrews, and quoting it 
 inaccurately, has entirely misrepresented the writer's meaning. True meaning 
 of the 1 1th verse as it stands in the original. Ib. No colour for requiring the 
 admission that the Almighty God, who fills the universe, was incarnate in a 
 man with all his glorious energies and attributes suspended, and doing nothing 
 during the third part of a century. No revelation of such a monstrous pro' 
 position. Any system-maker might more plausibly pretend that the Father 
 wus incarnate, and quote our Lord's words: 'My Father who dwelleth in me 
 he doth the works.' No colour for supposing that another infinite and al- 
 mighty person, of whom our Lord says nothing, was incarnate, and conse- 
 quently dwelt in him likewise, p. 354. The Divine's remark on the author's 
 observation that prayer is never offered to Christ, p. 355. Difference between 
 a request made to a person whom being present we see with the eye of 
 the body, and requests made to an invisible Being, whom we see only with 
 the eye of the mind. To the former we ascribe no attribute of Deity. To 
 the latter we ascribe omnipresence and omniscience, and the requests made 
 to Him are strictly prayers, p. 356. Observations upon the cafe of Stephen, 
 quoted by the Divine. Ib. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus con- 
 sidered. The petitions addressed by the former to Abraham like those of
 
 XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Stephen, mere requests to one personally, and visibly present, and not 
 prayers. God and Christ as much distinguished from each other, as Abraham 
 and Lazarus. As much reason for concluding that Luke did not consider 
 Christ, who could not stand at his own right hand, to be God. as that he Hid 
 not consider Lazarus, who could not be in his own bosom, to be Abraham, 
 p. 357. Paul's statement, 2 Cor. xii. 8, that he besought the Lord thrice that 
 the thorn in the flesh might depart from him, admits of a similar expla- 
 nation. That of the Trinitarians is at variance with the express injunction 
 of our Lord, and with the uniform practice of a!! the Apostles, p. 338. The 
 texts Acts ix. 14, I Cor. i. 2, which the common version represents as re- 
 lating to persons who call on the name of the I/jrd Jesus, may be rendered 
 'as relating to persons called l/y that name,' and also in other senses, p. 559. 
 The Apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, no prayer, but a pious wish, and 
 it is not addressed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but to the Corinthinns 
 only. p. 360. If the Divine's hypothesis were correct, that it does not com- 
 port with the office the Holy Spirit holds, to be addressed in prayer as the 
 Son, nor with that of the Son, to be addressed as frequently as the Father, 
 then taking the instances he mentions of the latter, which were only when 
 he was personally and visibly present, we should have a Trinity of three per- 
 sonal distinctions, the first of whom is to be prayed to without restriction; the 
 second, only when he is personally and visibly present; and the third, not 
 at all. p. 3<">1. Whatever might he thought of this, if our prayers were in 
 conformity to it, we should pray to the Father only, and the Unitarians might 
 join. p. 362. The passages John xiv. 26, John xvi. 13, do not prove the per- 
 sonality of the Holy Spirir. If such an important doctrine, upon the belief 
 of which men's salvation is made to depend, had been true, it woti'd have been 
 clearly and specifically revealed, and not left to. be made out by inference 
 from putting the masculine pronoun i*.Mt; into one scale, to balance the neu- 
 tral article r/> in the other, p. 362. The frequent personifications of the Scrip- 
 ture writers, and of John in particular, account for the introduction of the 
 word tuimn, and when we find the name of God, the breath of God, and almo>t 
 all his attributes personified, no wonder that his Spirit is personified also. 
 p. 363. The Spirit when sent, represented in Acts ii. as a thing, as something 
 with which persons were filled, which was poured out, shed forth, and made a 
 presentof to multitudes, meaning nothing but miraculous powers, communicated 
 not by a supposed Holy Spirit, but by Christ himself; and the Apostle Peter 
 says not a syllable about a PERSON called the Holy Spirit, though expressly 
 treating on the subject of the Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian could have given 
 such an account of the Son and Spirit, as this Apostle does. p. 364-. The 
 whole of the text, Acts x. 33, representing God as having anointed Jesus of 
 Nazareth with the Holy Spirit, and with power, would be incongruous, and ri- 
 diculous, upon the supposition of the Holy Spirit being a person, p. 365. Figu- 
 rative use of the word Spirit, 'z Kings ii. 9, in the case of F.lijnh and F.lisha. 
 p. 366. Instances of the Spirit being said to dwell in persons, and of Faith, 
 the word of Christ, and sin, being said to do the like : also of the Spirit being;
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXI 
 
 said to be given sometimes by measure, and sometimes without measurp. 
 p. 369. The term ' spirit of a person' frequently used to denote the person him- 
 self, and the Spirit of God used to mean the same thing as to God, that the 
 spirit of a man does to a man. Ib. No instance in the Scriptures of the Spirit, 
 though it was to lead the Disciples into all truth, having communicated to 
 them the knowledge that it was a person in the Godhead, distinct from, but 
 equal to, the Father and Son, and together with them, to be praised, worship- 
 ped, and glorified, or that any one ever did praise, worship, or glorify it. It 
 follows, therefore, demonstrably, that it is not the truth. Ib. We may make 
 sense of the passage in John without understanding the Spirit to be a real per- 
 son, as well as of that in Prov. viii. 1-4, without understanding Wisdom to be 
 a real person. There is no reason for adopting a construction not sanctioned 
 by any plain declaration in Scripture, which has occasioned the setting up 
 an imaginary person, and investing him with the attributes of the Supreme 
 lieing, and has ended in our praying to, worshipping and glorifying him, 
 which is irreconcileable both with the precepts, and practice, of every one of 
 the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, and of our Lord himself, p. 368.. 
 The two texts, Matt. xxiv. 36, Mark xiii. 32, stating that our Lord did not 
 know the day of Judgement, are so clear, that the only difficulty is to create 
 a doubt about their meaning: but it is very doubtful whether the word oi$i is to 
 be understood in the sense of the corresponding Hebrew word in the Hyphil, 
 meaning ' to make known.' Why it is not to be so understood, p. 371. Ephes. 
 iii. 10, demonstrates that the Apostle Paul, who was a Hebrew, and accus- 
 tomed to the Hyphil, knew better when addressing Gentiles who knew nothing 
 of the Hyphil, than to employ the Greek verb tiSuu, which signifies only to 
 know, in the sense of ' making known,' a sense in which none of them would 
 have understood it. He therefore used another word, namely yi/nonr6v, from 
 y/vjiai, one of the ordinary meanings of which is 'to make known.' p. 372. 
 Clear that our Lord did not speak, nor the Apostle Matthew write, in the. 
 Hyphil; which is confirmed by Mark. p. 373. The proposed version of ' making 
 known,' tried by the test of putting it into the text, and its absurdity thereby 
 demonstrated, p. 374. The plain and original sense of the word not only 
 presents us with a clear and consistent sense, but also with a noble climax, 
 p. 375. The Divine misled by the common version, in supposing that Christ 
 distinguishes himself from men. The Greek word is oidus, no one, which 
 gives an intelligible and beautiful meaning, without any such distinction. Ib. 
 Whether these texts refer to the day of judgement, or not, does not affect the 
 argument. They prove, upon the authority of Christ himself, that Christ is not 
 God. p. 376. Not contrary to Scripture to affirm, that God can qualify one 
 of the human race for the office of Universal Judge. Christ originally not so 
 qualified, but required to be taught, to learn, and to be made perfect, and it 
 is God who dwells in him, and acts by him, and is so to do in the future state. 
 Ib. The words 'me>e creature,' a Trinitarian gloss, p. 379. The Divine too 
 cautious to take the affirmative upon him, and to assert that the AI-MIGHTY 
 cannot qualify a mere creature to judge thn whole human race. Id. Acts xvii.
 
 XXX11 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 30, 31, would dispose of the quotation, Psalm I. 6, that God is judged him- 
 self, even if the latter referred to the general judgement, which it is likely it 
 does not. p. 380. Not clear that St. Paul in Rom. xiv. 10. 12, quotes Is. xlv. 
 123 ; hut if it were, it would furnish no proof of Christ being God. The judge- 
 ments of Christ, ho is the agent, and called a man, and nothing more, are 
 the judgements of God, who is the principal ; and bowing the knee to him, 
 when invested with the character of God's representative, is in effect bowing 
 it to God ; and giving an account of himself to him upon the same occasion, 
 is giving a'n account of himself to God. p. 381. This illustrated by the 
 King's debtors accounting to him, and the King's judges pronouncing his 
 judgements. All is plain as A B C, except when connected with religious 
 controversy. II). Our Lord's being the son of man, not the strangest of all 
 reasons for all judgement being committed to him, but the reason he himself 
 has assigned for it. p. 382. ' Son of man' means nothing more than a mere 
 man. The Prophet Ezekiel called so more than fifty times. If Christ being 
 God, was the reason why all judgement was committed to him, that would be 
 the strongest reason, and would have been most frequently mentioned ; but 
 Christ and his Apostles, who have assigned the former reason for it, have 
 never mentioned this. p. 3S2. Nor would God's appointment of Christ to 
 the office, because he is the son of man, be any reason for every one of us 
 being appointed to it, but the contrary, p. 384. The assertion, John xvii. 3, 
 that the Father is the only true God, is not merely in opposition to idols, 
 but stands absolute, and excludes every other being, but the Father, from 
 being such, and consequently excludes the Son and Spirit, p. 384. When 
 one of two persons calls the other the only true God, we cannot, believing him 
 to speak the truth, contradict him, and say that he himself is also the only 
 trne God. Christ only asserted that the Father was the only true God, but 
 said not a syllable of the Son or Spirit, much less of all three being so. p. 386. 
 The Almighty Father, who spake by the Prophets, has declared by them, 
 that he the Father alone, is God. p. 387. In this passage our Lord mentions 
 himself as contradistinguished from the Father, and applies the epithet of 'the 
 only true God' to the Father, and not to himself, thereby excluding himself, 
 and acknowledging that he was not God. Ib. 1 John v. 20. We know that the 
 Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know 
 him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in or by his Son Jesus Christ. 
 'This is the true God and eternal life,' explained and shewn to be adverse 
 to the Trinitarian scheme, but perfectly in unison with John xvii. 3, each 
 text throwing great light upon the other, p. 388. Further remarks on 1 John 
 v. 20, and Griesbach's marking the words \*<rt>u X^ttrrov, as doubtful, p. 390. 
 Reply to the objection that if 1 Cor. viii. 4. 6. excludes the son from being 
 God, it excludes the Father from being Lord, that both allegations stand ab- 
 solute, and are perfectly consistent, the first excluding all persons but the 
 Father from being God, and the second, all persons but the Son, from being 
 Lord to us. p. .391. We have only to inquire in what sense Christ is alleged 
 to be Lord to us, which St. Peter shews, Acts ii. 36, to have been, that of a
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXX111 
 
 delegated Lord appointed by the Father, in which sense there is no other 
 Lord to us but Christ, p. 393. That the word * Lord,' here used, does not mean 
 God, but some other person, and means Lord in spiritual things; that the 
 Heathens having many Gods, had many Lords in spiritual things under their 
 Gods, whilst we Christians having but one God, have but one Lord in spiritual 
 things under our God. This, a beautiful and well connected meaning, which 
 renders the whole passage perfectly clear, p. 394. But if the words were to 
 be understood in a more general sense, the Apostle Paul shews, 1 Cor. xv. 27, 
 that the Father must upon all such occasions be considered to be excepted. 
 p. 395. But when the sole sovereignty of the Father is mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture, there is not one solitary instance of any such exception in favour of the 
 Son, or in favour of the Holy Ghost. In this very passage, where the Father 
 is expressly excepted, the Holy Ghost is not, nor is any notice taken of it. 
 The necessary inference from this. p. 596. If the Apostle had not been an 
 Unitarian himself, he could never have expressed himself as he has done, 
 which would have been calculated to mislead his hearers, and make them, 
 what in fact they were, all Unitarians. Ib. Why the Author quoted jDr. 
 Doddridge's interpretation of the phrase ' ascending up into Heaven,' but re- 
 jects his- notion of the eternal generation of the Son. p. 397. Other proofs 
 from John vi. that ascending up into Heaven, and coming down from Heaven, 
 cannot mean a literal, and local ascent, or descent. What they do mean, 
 p. 398. The Author rejects the existing creeds, 1st, because they contain 
 doctrines not only not contained in, but contrary to, the Scriptures; and se- 
 condly, because he denies the authority of any uninspired men to establish 
 creeds, as necessary to be believed by Christians. The creeds they have 
 framed contradictory and absurd, and have been productive of incalculable 
 discord, misery, and bloodshed, p. 400. Contradictions in, and additions 
 made to, the creed called the Apostles' Creed, which the Apostles however had 
 no concern in the fabrication of. p. 401. Observations upon the Nicene 
 creed, which begins scripturally, but afterwards represents the almighty, 
 eternal, immortal, and invisible God to have been crucified, dead and buried. 
 Also, in flat contradiction to St. Paul, that Christ's Kingdom shall have no 
 end ; and also, without any warrant in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost is the 
 Lord and giver of life, that he is, together with the Father and Son, to be 
 worshipped and glorified, which he is never required to be, nor is ever said to 
 have been by any one in Scripture, and that he spake by the prophets, con- 
 trary to Heb. i. 1, which states it to have been the Father who spake by tlie 
 Prophets, p. 401. Remarks upon the creed called the Creed of St. Athana- 
 sius, whose creed it is not, a creed which all parties have long wished us well 
 rid of, and which has been struck out in America. Defective, unwarranted, 
 and inconsistent statements of. p. 404. Refutation of the Divine's assertion, 
 that fact confirms what the SCRIPTURES fully testify, that the reception of the 
 Trinitarian doctrines so as to render them vital and efficacious, depends upon 
 a certain state of mind produced by the Holy Spirit, p. 405. In Christianity 
 every thing necessary to make us wise unto salvation is placed in broad day-
 
 XXXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 light, and open sun-shine, but we are too apt to prefer the daikness of MYSTEP.Y 
 to the light of Revelation, p. 407. Dr. Stock does not support his change of 
 opinion either by reason or Scripture. Ib. The two supposed first Chapters 
 of Matthew not conGrmed by the supposed corresponding chapters of Luke, 
 for they are completely at war with each other, p. 408- Assumption of the 
 term ' Evangelical ' by the Calvinists. They ought rather to be called EPISTO- 
 LAniANS. Ib. The Divine's statement, that Unitarian sentiments appear to 
 leave a creature who has sinned, without a foundation on which he can stand 
 at the tribunal of his judge, that the atnnement which the SCRIPTURES declare 
 to be the grand design of Christ's coming, requires the divinity of Christ, that 
 it may satisfy divine justice, and that if his divinity and the atonement could 
 be disproved, we should have our religion to seek, for that of the Scriptures 
 could not meet the necessities of fallen man, furnish another melancholy in- 
 stance of the manner in which the sacred writings are appealed to, for what 
 they do not contain. Inquiry where the Scriptures make any such declara- 
 tions, p. 409. No such word as ' atonement ' in the whole of the New Testa- 
 ment, except once in the common version, where the word xa<rXXys is 
 mistranslated so. When translated rightly, ' reconciliation,' it is the reverse 
 of the atonement, p, 410. The very passage in which it is thus mistranslated, 
 Rom. v. 10, would with such mistranslation be destructive of the Calvinistic 
 doctrine. Ib. Strange notion, that every offence against an infinite Being, is 
 an infinite offence, and reqaires infinite satisfaction, or infinite punishment. 
 A finite being cannot commit an infinite offence, p. 411. Such an offence, 
 though committed against an infinite Being, cannot therefore become infinite. 
 p. 412. Not true that all offences committed against Sovereigns are punished 
 more severely than such as are committed against subject?. Attempts 
 against their life or throne are, because by such attempts the one may be de- 
 stroyed, and tlie other overthrown, but the King of kings holds his existence 
 and authority by no such precarious tenure. He laughs at all such attempts 
 against him, and makes them all subservient to the accomplishment of his 
 purposes, p. 413. Comparison of the supposed Evangelical, and the Unita- 
 rian systems. The former represents the Supreme Being to be a compound 
 Deity, a triune God, enshrined in MYSTERY, and described in characters which 
 would compel us to consider him, if we believed them, to be an unjust, ma- 
 lignant, and cruel Divinity. It represents him as having, from all eternity, 
 predestinated the great mass of his intelligent offspring to exquisite and 
 never-ending torments, and as having, well-knowing it, thought fit to call 
 them into existence, p. 414. Nature of the covenant it supposes to have 
 been made with Adam, which no wise or good Being would have permitted 
 him to enter into. p. 4l5.^A bright and glittering prize held up by it to 
 him, which he, the promiser, knew at the time would turn up a most dreadful 
 blank. Ib. An infernal spirit also let loose upon him, without any intimation 
 of his being exposed to such an unknown enemy, p. 416. This spirit of dark- 
 ness represented as having been long at war with the ALMIGHTY, and as having 
 actually got the better of him, and frustrated his intention? as to the greater
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV 
 
 part of mankind, p. 417. A gross libel upon the Majesty on High, to repre- 
 sent him as having appointed Adam to a trust for thousands of millions of his 
 descendants, which he knew he was utterly unfit for. Ib. Effects of a single 
 breach of it upon his unconscious and unfortunate offspring. Their utter in- 
 ability to help themselves, whilst he who alone can assist them, extends* his 
 favour only to a few, leaving all the rest to their melancholy fate. Ib. He is 
 represented also as calling on these unhappy victims, to look unto him and be 
 saved; which is the greatest mockery and delusion, when he knows that not 
 one of them can obey the call. p. 418. Malignity must be the predominant 
 feature in the character of such a being. The fabled Divinity of antiquity 
 who devoured his own offspring, was mercy itself compared to him. p. 4 19. 
 The latter had motives for his conduct, which the former had not. Ib. Should 
 we not hold up a human father or Sovereign, who should act so, as a horrible 
 and execrable tyrant ? Would fallen creatures who had broken the laws of 
 such a Being, have any foundation on which to stand at his tribunal ? Would 
 not innumerable multitudes of them, notwithstanding the supposed atone- 
 ment, be hurried from thence to everlasting torment ? Would this system 
 meet the wants and wishes of fallen man ? p. 420. This system also represents 
 the Supreme Father in the character of a hard unfeeling creditor, p. 421. It 
 denies him the power of pardoning offences, until the full punishment for them 
 has been inflicted upon somebody, which is no pardon at all. It imputes to him 
 the punishment of the innocent, instead of the guilty, and this it calls forgive- 
 uess. Supposed justice, which requires this, a justice of their own making. Ib. 
 Yet this is the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar has set up, and which 
 we are commanded to fall down and worship, p. 422. Contrast between this 
 grim Idol, and the God of Holy Writ. The latter described in Scripture as 
 the father and friend of all, as infinitely benevolent, and abundantly pardon- 
 ing all who forsake their evil ways, and return to him, without saying a word 
 about punishing them, or any one else, in their stead, as a Being who blotteth 
 out our transgressions for his own name's sake, whose anger endureth but a 
 moment, who is good to all, and whose loving kindness and tender mercies 
 are over all his works. Ib. The popular system contradicts all this, and as- 
 cribes to him attributes and conduct the very reverse, p. 423. The language 
 of Christ in the New Testament to the same effect as that of the Prophets in 
 the Old, representing his Father, and ours, as fall of mercy and goodness, as 
 one who actually forgives transgressions and sins, who will forgive us our tres- 
 passes, as we forgive others theirs, which we are not to do by getting full satis- 
 faction made for them by some one else. p. 424. When asked what must be 
 done to inherit eternal life, he tells the inquirer at once, without troubling him 
 with any of the subtleties adopted in later ages. Had the doctrines of the in- 
 finite satisfaction, and atonement, been essential and fundamental parts of the 
 Gospel, and men's salvation depended upon the belief of them, he would not 
 have been quite silent about them. p. 425. The language of the Apostles in 
 perfect unison, representing the Supreme Being to be love itself, to be one who 
 u-ills that all men shall be saved, and his will must be accomplished; to be
 
 XXXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 one who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe, which ihews 
 that those who do not believe, will, at some time or other, be saved also. Ib. 
 Further proofs of the salvation of all men through Christ, from the Epistles 
 to the Romans and Corinthians, and John i. 29. p. 426. Punishment reserved 
 for the impenitent in a future state, not to be vindictive, but correctional. 
 Where sin hath abounded, grace is much more to abound. Christ is to reign 
 till he has subdued all enemies, when the last enemy, and he only, is to be de- 
 stroyed, and God to be all among all : which could not be, if there were to be 
 thousands of millions of intelligent beings in a state of rebellion and enmity 
 against him to all eternity, p. 429. A more rational construction, that after 
 the resurrection there shall be a state of punishment called the second death, 
 for the impenitent, who, having risen with all their vicious habits and propen- 
 sities, will require a long and severe course of discipline so fully to reform 
 them as to prevent all future relapses, and that Christ shall reign, till by the 
 salutary, though severe measures of his administration, he shall have com- 
 pletely subdued them, and from enemies, have converted them all into 
 friends, and all shall have benefited by his mission ; when the second death 
 having answered all its purposes, that last enemy shall be destroyed, and then 
 Christ himself, having fulfilled all the objects of his mission, having died for 
 all, and saved all, shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that 
 God may be all among all, and universal goodness, virtue and happiness pre- 
 vail for ever, p. 431. A glorious and happy consummation, fully justifying 
 the ways of God to man, and shewing the Gospel to be indeed good news to 
 ali mankind. This the religion, and the only religion, which can be uni- 
 versal ; the only religion which can give a creature who has sinned, a foun- 
 dation on which he can stand at the tribunal of his judge ; the only religion 
 which can meet the necessities of fallen man, for it meets, and completely 
 provides for, the necessities of them all. p. 432. It is the most beautiful, as 
 well as beneficent system our warmest wishes could have aspired to. Its na- 
 ture and character designate it, as having emanated from Him, whose most 
 distinguished attribute is universal benevolence. How delightful to live 
 under the government of 'such a glorious and beneficent sovereign ! With 
 breasts glowing with gratitude, we can repose all our cares upon him, and not 
 feel the desolating sense of despair, even if any who are dear to us, wander 
 from his ways and die impenitent. Ib. Not to be wondered that we who en- 
 tertain these views of the character and government of the Supreme Being, 
 and his gracious designs towards ourselves and our fellow men, should bind 
 them to our hearts, and cherish them as heavenly treasures. Conclusion, 
 p. 434,
 
 287 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR, 
 
 MY third Letter, which was not sent till after I had 
 received your fourth, you will find to have anticipated 
 some of the remarks contained in the latter. 
 
 In this Letter you tell me you do not see what end 
 the passage I quoted from Origen (p. 19) can answer; 
 for that if it be true, that ctvro deity be expressed with 
 the article, then Jesus Christ is underived deity, for 
 which you quote again, John xx. 28, Rom. ix. 5, 
 which I have already considered, and shown clearly 
 that neither of them proves any thing like it. You 
 add, "that Origen himself, believing Jesus Christ to 
 be the true God, could not see any discrepancy between 
 the manner in which the Scriptures apply the article 
 to so?, when speaking of Christ, and the orthodox 
 doctrine, as it was then thought, of the proper deity 
 of Christ." But Origen differs from you entirely, and 
 did not entertain the opinions you are desirous of 
 ascribing to him. On the contrary, he absolutely 
 denies that the Scriptures apply the article to Christ, 
 and expressly affirms it to be applied to the Father 
 
 u
 
 288 
 
 only, whom he quotes our Saviour as calling the only 
 true God (p. 19) ; and in another place (p. 173) 
 declares it to be rash, and inconsistent with our 
 Saviour's own words, to say, as you do, in consequence 
 of misinterpreting Rom. ix. 5, that he is God over 
 all : and Eusebius, as I have remarked already, in 
 still stronger terms lays it down as the constant, 
 known doctrine of the church, that Christ is not God 
 over all ; but that this is the peculiar title of the Father, 
 and that whoever applies this title to the Son cannot 
 be a pious person (p. 174). 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity having made consider- 
 able advances in the time of Origen, he did, it is true, 
 believe Jesus Christ to be God ; but he believed him 
 at the same time to be inferior to the Father. The 
 Trinity of those days was so very different a thing 
 from the Trinity of modern times, that if you, my 
 dear Sir, were known to entertain the same ideas of 
 it as were then entertained, and to be of the same 
 opinion upon the subject as Origen was, I am quite 
 certain that you would not continue to hold for six 
 months, that situation which you at present fill, 
 with so much credit to yourself, and benefit to the 
 public. 
 
 Permit me now to inform you what end the quo- 
 tation from Origen can answer on my side of the 
 question. Nothing less than furnishing, as far as the 
 opinion of that early, eminent, and learned Father 
 goes, a complete answer to your positions, " that the
 
 289 
 
 term o %zog, God with the article, is applicable to 
 Christ; that the Fathers considered the absence of the 
 article no evidence of the reading, at God ; and that it 
 was never used against them when the Greek article 
 was better understood than it is now." In this I 
 have shown that he did not stand alone, whilst you 
 have not been able to make it appear that he was in 
 those times contradicted by any one. 
 
 You state, " that I object to the authenticity of the 
 two first chapters of St. Matthew, contrary to the 
 evidence of manuscripts and the testimony of history; 
 and that Griesbach stamps them with the mark of un- 
 questionable authenticity." To this I reply, that hav- 
 ing been generally received previously to the existence 
 of Represent manuscripts, (none of which extend fur- 
 ther back than the fourth century,) it is not to be expect- 
 ed that any of these should omit them : but you are not 
 ignorant that there were manuscripts still more early, 
 the existence of which we know, though they have not 
 comedown to us, which always omitted them. The 
 evidence of history shows that they were objected to, 
 and omitted, by whole bodies of Christians from the 
 very earliest periods ; and that truly eminent and im- 
 partial critic Griesbach, has only considered them ge- 
 nuine, for any thing that appears to the contrary, ac- 
 cording to the now existing manuscripts, which were 
 what he was concerned with, and was bound to deter- 
 mine upon, according to the plan of his invaluable work. 
 
 To their authenticity I oppose, not only the earlier 
 u 2
 
 290 
 
 MSS. I have referred to, but the testimony of persons 
 living at the very time our Saviour made his first ap- 
 pearance as a teacher, perhaps at the time he was 
 born, who knew him well, were nearly connected with 
 him, and had every opportunity of knowing the facts 
 mentioned in these chapters, if they had had any exist- 
 ence: I mean Philip, Nathaniel, and others mentioned 
 in different parts of the New Testament of undisputed 
 authority, particularly John i. 45, who contradicted 
 the story of his miraculous conception contained in 
 these chapters, by affirming him to be the Son of 
 Joseph ; whom they mention as his father, not his 
 supposed father. If indeed the accounts given in 
 these chapters, and in the two first supposed chapters 
 of St. Luke be true, he could not have been supposed 
 by any one then living in Judea, much less by his own 
 relations, apostles and friends, imbued as you repre- 
 sent them to have been, with previous sentiments to 
 be the son fcf Joseph ; his supposed miraculous con- 
 ception by a virgin having according to these accounts 
 been prophesied hundreds of years before, and the ex- 
 traordinary events attending his birth mentioned in 
 these chapters, but which are no where else to be found, 
 having been proclaimed not only to the whole nation, 
 but even to persons living beyond the boundaries of 
 Judea, and having not merely become matters of the 
 most public notoriety, but having occasioned a great 
 public calamity, which was likely to be remembered 
 for centuries, namely, the murder of all the young
 
 291 
 
 children under two years of age of an entire district : 
 yet thesepersons, that is, Philip, Nathaniel, and others, 
 are represented in those parts of the Scriptures which 
 are universally acknowledged to be genuine, as having 
 found him, and having reported it to others as a dis- 
 covery they had just made (John i. 45). And his own 
 family, his own brothers and sisters, are represented 
 as having been entirely ignorant, at the time he began 
 to perform miracles, even that he was to be the Mes- 
 siah (John vii. 5) : some of his friends even incon- 
 siderately imagining that he was beside himself, be- 
 cause he suffered himself to be so much engaged with 
 the multitude, as to be unable even to eat bread. 
 (Markiii. 20,' 21.) 
 
 I oppose also to the authenticity of these chapters, 
 the deep and entire silence that prevails, in every other 
 part of these very gospels, in every part of the two 
 other gospels, and in every other part of the New Tes- 
 tament, respecting each and every of the extraordinary 
 facts mentioned in these chapters ; which were of the 
 utmost importance if true, and quite as much requir- 
 ing to be taught in those times, at least to the con- 
 verts in other countries, who could not be supposed 
 to know them without being taught them, as they are 
 in the present, when they are as carefully inculcated 
 and insisted upon, by those who have any belief in 
 them, as any Christian doctrines whatever. Yet, asto- 
 nishing as it would be if they were true, not one of 
 them is in the most distant manner mentioned or
 
 202 
 
 alluded to any where. This is not like the omission 
 of a single miracle by one evangelist, and the supply 
 of it by another, which you mention. It is the omis- 
 sion of an entire state of things, comprising most 
 numerous and important events, and establishing a 
 most important doctrine, necessary, if true, to be 
 known and believed by all Christians in all ages. 
 Hence it is apparent, that we have the testimony of 
 history, of contemporaneous history, of history un- 
 questionably authentic, history written by evangelists 
 and apostles, in direct opposition to these chapters. 
 
 I further oppose to them the absurd, ridiculous, and 
 puerile nature of many of the accounts contained in 
 them, their contradicting each other, and also con- 
 tradicting other parts of Scripture which are undis- 
 puted ; instances of which I have already furnished, 
 and to which more may, if requisite, be added ; and 
 which, with the silence of every one of the other New 
 Testament writers, all of whom were contemporaneous 
 with Matthew and Luke, forms a strong body both 
 of internal and external evidence against their authen- 
 ticity. Lt me ask you therefore, whether in the case 
 of any other writers of antiquity upon any other sub- 
 ject, all these things would not be held, without hesi- 
 tation, to be clear proofs of forgery ? 
 
 You object to rny remark, that the title prefixed to 
 St. Matthew's Gospel, namely, The Book of the 
 Generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, (being a 
 title not at all fit for the whole work,) gives the two
 
 293 
 
 chapters the appearance of having been a separate 
 treatise, not originally belonging to the gospel ; and 
 tell me that this is a Hebraism, meaning the genea- 
 logy of Jesus Christ, with which the writer commences 
 his gospel ; and that without this it would have no com- 
 mencement : and you refer me to the book of Genesis, 
 which you say cannot be the title of a whole book. The 
 substitution of the word 'genealogy' however, for 'ge- 
 neration/ makes no difference at all in this respect. 
 Whether it be the book of the Generation, or the book 
 of the Genealogy, of Jesus Christ, it is equally unfit 
 to be the title of the whole Gospel. The book of 
 Genesis which you refer to, is not at all in point. 
 There was a reason for giving that book a particular 
 designation, which does not exist in the present case; 
 namely, that Moses wrote Jive books, which it was ne- 
 cessary to distinguish from one another. Accordingly 
 each is distinguished in the Hebrew, (which seems to 
 have escaped your recollection,) by the word it begins 
 with, and by no other name whatever. Thus the name 
 of his first book, which we call Genesis, is Berishith, 
 meaning ' In the beginning ;' of his second, which we 
 call Exodus, Eleh Shemoth, meaning, ' These are the 
 names' ; of his third, which we call Leviticus, Vajikra, 
 meaning, 'And he called'; of his fourth, which we call 
 Numbers, Banridbar, meaning 'In the wilderness'; and 
 of his fifth, which we call Deuteronomy, Eleh Hade- 
 barim, meaning ' These are the words'. The only rea- 
 sons therefore why the first book of Moses was called
 
 294 
 
 Genesis, were because it happened to begin with that 
 word, and required some name to distinguish it from 
 his four other books, which were also designated in 
 the same manner, without the least regard to the con- 
 tents of them. 
 
 But St. Matthew wrote only one book, which had 
 a distinct and appropriate title that suited the whole 
 of it, namely, The Gospel, meaning The good news ; 
 and, from the time that other Gospels were pub- 
 lished and in general circulation, the Gospel according 
 to St. Matthew. Now if we reject the two first chap- 
 ters, and the unnecessary and incongruous title of 
 ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son 
 of David, the son of Abraham,' we shall see how well 
 its real title suits the whole of the book, which begins 
 with the prediction of the good news it treats of by 
 John the Baptist, goes on with the preaching of it, 
 and the wonderful works performed in attestation of 
 it by our Lord, and ends with the completion of it by 
 his death and glorious resurrection and ascension as 
 a pledge and pattern of our own. But if we retain 
 the two first chapters and their ill-fated title, and fol- 
 low the rule which has been adopted for the title of 
 the first book of the Pentateuch, we shall have for the 
 title of St. Matthew's Gospel, either The Gospel ac- 
 cording to St. Matthew, called Abraham ; or The 
 Gospel according to St. Matthew, called the Book : 
 or if we choose to add the whole of the second title 
 to the first, it will stand The Gospel according to St.
 
 Matthew called the Book of the Generation of Jesus, 
 Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. 
 Whoever prefers either to the present name, may take 
 which he pleases. If we read the whole as one title 
 without any addition, The Gospel acccording to St. 
 Matthew, the Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, it will be 
 ridiculous, and double upon the face of it. If we read 
 only The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of David, the Son of Abraham, it will be incom- 
 plete ; for the genealogy is not a fiftieth part of the 
 whole, and the other parts are of far more consequence 
 than the genealogy ; it will not shew whose Gospel it 
 is, nor distinguish it from Luke's Gospel, which has a 
 genealogy likewise. 
 
 Setting aside these two chapters, which to me ap- 
 pear plainly to have been added to this Gospel, and 
 the two first chapters ascribed to St. Luke, to which 
 there are equal objections, and which seem to have 
 been added in like manner, and from similar motives, 
 it will appear that all the Gospels begin at about the 
 same period, that is, the preaching of John the Bap- 
 tist, and his public annunciation of Jesus as the Mes- 
 siah ; before which time nothing was known of Jesus 
 Christ personally as such, nothing except through the 
 medium of the Prophecies; no, not by John the Bap- 
 tist himself, who does not appear to have been ac- 
 quainted with his person, till he saw the spirit de- 
 scending upon him like a dove at the time he baptized
 
 296 
 
 him ; for he expressly says twice, that he did not know 
 him, (ch. i. 31, 33) : yet if the supposed two first 
 chapters of St. Luke are to be credited, they were near 
 relations, their families living within a moderate di- 
 stance of each other, upon visiting terms ; and John's 
 father and mother not only well acquainted with Mary, 
 who had paid them one visit at least at their own house, 
 but also with her supposed miraculous conception of 
 him, who was to be the future Messiah. Is it credible, 
 that neither the father nor mother, being under no 
 injunctions of secrecy, should never have said a sylla- 
 ble of this to their son John as he grew up ; or that 
 he, or any thing wearing the human form, after hear- 
 ing of this wonderful personage, a relation too of his 
 own, should never have had the curiosity to take a 
 shorl journey to Nazareth, to see him ? 
 
 You say, that without the two first chapters of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel, it has in fact no commencement. 
 But why may it not begin with, " In those days came 
 John the Baptist preaching." Is this half as abrupt 
 as the beginning of the first espistle of St. John ? and 
 does it not open at as fit a period as the other Gospels 
 do ? indeed at the same period ? Do not these words 
 shew that the preceding parts, as we now have them in 
 our present copies, formed no part of the original Go- 
 spel ? for if we read them in continuance, as they are 
 written in those copies, they refer to the time when 
 Joseph came out of Egypt with the young child Jesus 
 and his mother, and came and dwelt at Nazareth;
 
 297 
 
 and the Evangelist is made to say, "In those days 
 came John the Baptist preaching," when according 
 to the two first supposed chapters of St. Luke, 
 John must have been then a young child himself, and 
 did not come preaching till more than twenty years 
 after. 
 
 I still consider the remarks 1 offered (p. 44) on 
 the representations this writer makes relative to the 
 fourteen generations, as furnishing not only an argu- 
 ment against their authenticity, but an argument 
 which you have not been able to weaken in the least. 
 A writer who takes upon him to state that just so 
 many generations intervened between one event and 
 another, the same number between that event and a 
 second, and the very same number between the second 
 and a third, is bound to be correct ; otherwise his 
 statement is both false and trifling. His conduct too 
 is the more inexcusable, as his genealogy is falsified 
 both by Kings and Chronicles, where you will find 
 that the persons who ought to have been inserted, 
 are not only particularly mentioned as distinguished 
 personages, but the dates and lengths of their respec- 
 tive reigns, with some of the principal transactions 
 which took place in them, are also expressly related, 
 shewing demonstrably, that there was no colour for 
 pretending that all the generations from David until 
 the carrying away into Babylon were fourteen genera- 
 tions, as this writer has gravely informed us. 
 
 Nor would the arguments I have adduced for re-
 
 298 
 
 jecting this account, be deemed by any intelligent 
 deist to be such as should induce me to set aside three- 
 fourths of the Scriptures : for I will venture to affirm, 
 that there is not to be found in the whole compass of 
 Scripture, any other account that is so expressly 
 falsified, in its principal allegations, by other parts of 
 Scripture, whilst it is at the same time totally unsup- 
 ported by any. 
 
 You inform me, " that it is not proved that the 
 genealogy of Matthew is irreconcileable with that 
 of Luke, for that they refer to different views of 
 the Saviour's descent ; that from his less remote an- 
 cestor by the supposed father, and that from the more 
 remote by his mother." But I have only your word 
 for this; for when I look into the supposed first chap- 
 ter of St. Matthew, I find, supposing the author of 
 the first seventeen verses and of the rest of the chapter 
 to be the same person, that though he entitles it, The 
 Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 David, the Son of Abraham, it does not prove him 
 to be the son of either ; nor does it give any account 
 whatever of his generation or genealogy, but only that 
 of Joseph, who according to the rest of the chapter 
 was not his father. It is unquestionably, however, 
 the genealogy of Joseph ; and it traces his descent 
 through the royal line of Jewish monarchs, from David 
 to the overthrow of that dynasty, and from the last 
 of those princes to Joseph himself. 
 
 In the third chapter of St. Luke we have another
 
 299 
 
 genealogy, which professes upon the face of it to be 
 also a genealogy of Joseph, and ascends from him to 
 David, through a totally different line of intermediate 
 ancestors, not one of whom is of, the royal line of 
 Jewish kings. You tell me that this is a descent by 
 the mother : but where are the proofs of it ? The 
 Evangelist contradicts it : for he expressly says that 
 Joseph was the son of Heli, and Heli the son of 
 Matthat, and so on, without saying a syllable about 
 Jesus's mother. Why then are we, contrary to the ex- 
 press words of Scripture, without any authority what- 
 ever, to assume, that this, which stands upon the face 
 of it, as the genealogy of Joseph, whose name is inserted 
 in it for that purpose, is the genealogy of Mary, whose 
 name is not mentioned or alluded to in it at all ? 
 
 It has been said, that a Trinitarian writer of the 
 third or fourth century (who probably had no better 
 reason to give) informed his readers two or three 
 hundred years or more after the event took place, that 
 some rabbi, nobody knows who, or where, or when, 
 had called her the daughter of Heli. This has all the 
 air of being an idle story, picked up probably at second 
 or third hand, when it was manifestly too late for the 
 parties to it to know any thing at all of the matter. 
 But supposing any rabbi ever to have said so, how 
 came he, so long after the destruction of the Jewish 
 nation, and the loss of all their genealogies and other 
 public documents, to know so much more about the 
 matter than the Christians? What probability is there,
 
 that a Jew should trace out (if he could) the genealogy 
 of the mother of one whom he considered to be a 
 base impostor, and whose memory he would have been 
 glad to consign to everlasting oblivion ? And are we to 
 believe all this to be truth itself, and upon such mi- 
 serably weak foundations take it for granted, that the 
 Evangelist's genealogy, though importing to be the ge- 
 nealogy of Joseph, whom he expressly names, is not his 
 genealogy, but that of another person not mentioned 
 nor even alluded to ? Supposing it to have been the ge- 
 nealogy of Mary, and not that of Joseph, what possi- 
 ble motive could there have been for omitting the name 
 of Mary, whose genealogy it was, and inserting that of 
 Joseph, whose genealogy it was not, instead of it ? 
 
 I have assigned some reasons in my second Letter, 
 p. 44 48, to which I shall add a few more in this, 
 why I consider the two first chapters of St. Luke, as 
 well as the two first of St. Matthew, to be interpola- 
 tions. These constitute but a part of the number that 
 might be easily adduced against their authenticity ; 
 and having no doubt of their being spurious, I should 
 have none that the same hand, which added them to 
 St. Luke's genuine Gospel, interpolated in the third 
 chapter the words (&>$ tyopiZsro) translated in the com- 
 mon version 'as was supposed,' if that be in reality their 
 meaning, to prevent the genealogy from completely 
 contradicting them. The chapter containing them 
 gives us the genealogy of Joseph, whose genealogy, if 
 he were only the supposed father of Jesus, it was of
 
 301 
 
 no consequence for us to be acquainted with. With- 
 out them we are presented with the genealogy of Jesus 
 himself, which, as tracing him up to David, and 
 finally to God, and thus shewing him to be descended 
 from those persons from whom it had been predicted 
 that the Messiah should descend, it was of highest 
 importance for us to be informed of. 
 
 The scope and design of St. Luke were evidently to 
 give the real genealogy of Jesus, and not his supposed 
 genealogy; and to trace his descent through David 
 whose son he afterwards in his Gospel calls him, and 
 whose son all the Jews knew him predicted to be, 
 up to Adam and to God, proving him to have been 
 both the son of Adam, and the son of God. But if he 
 was not the son of Joseph of what use was it, to make 
 either this genealogy, or that in the supposed first 
 chapter of St. Matthew, a genealogy of Joseph, or to 
 give it at all the appearance of being his genealogy ? If 
 the words &>$ svoptzro were originally part of the text, 
 and are rightly translated, ' as was supposed,' about 
 which there is great diversity of opinion, (for they 
 will also bear the construction, and so are translated 
 by some, being 'as he was supposed' the son of Joseph, 
 in opposition either to an idle opinion of the Jews 
 mentioned John vii. 27, (that when Christ came no 
 one would know whence he was,) or to the tenets of 
 the Gnostics, who denied that he was come in the 
 flesh, and maintained that he had only the appear- 
 ance of a human body, being in reality an seon, or
 
 302 
 
 emanation from the Supreme Being. And accordingly 
 they who thus translate the words, understood the 
 writer to mean, in opposition to such theories, that 
 Jesus Christ really was, what he was supposed to be, 
 the son of Joseph, and consequently a man) : yet it 
 would be most extraordinary, that any writer should 
 give '^supposed genealogy, when he was well acquainted 
 with, and might just as easily have given, the true one. 
 What was to have prevented him, if he knew that 
 Jesus was not in reality the son of Joseph, but only 
 supposed to have been so during his lifetime by the 
 Jews, but was universally known by all Christians not 
 to have been his son, but to have been the son of the 
 Most High, by Mary without any human father, from 
 satisfying his readers that he was the son of David 
 through his mother, which he might at once have done, 
 by saying that he was the son of Mary, who was the 
 daughter of Heli : or if Heli adopted Joseph because 
 he married his daughter, by saying so; for without 
 it the genealogy is that of Joseph only, and no one 
 could possibly understand it to be the genealogy of 
 Maiy without an explanation, which we look for in 
 vain in the subsequent parts of the history. Neither 
 St. Luke, nor any other Scripture writer, gives such 
 an explanation ; and we are required to infer it from 
 a ridiculous story told us by a writer of the third or 
 fourth century of an unknown rabbi having called 
 her the daughter of Heli, which comes to us in nothing 
 like the shape of authority or probability.
 
 St. Luke wrote in Greek for the use of Greek Chris- 
 tians, most of whom lived at a distance from Judea : 
 and many of them, being Gentiles, knew nothing of 
 the genealogies, and very little of the manners and 
 customs, of the Jews. These persons could never 
 have conceived, without being told so, that the writer 
 when he was tracing the genealogy of Jesus up to 
 David, from whose loins it had been predicted he was 
 to spring, Acts ii. 30, would do it through Joseph 
 his father-in-law, from whose loins he did not spring : 
 and through whom, as far as appears from this ac- 
 count, he could not spring from the loins of David, 
 nor be his son ; and wholly neglect to say, if it were 
 the fact, that his mother was the descendant of David, 
 and go up to him through her. If the Jewish custom 
 was, as some have said, to trace their genealogies 
 through the males only, it is plain that the custom 
 must have been violated, according to your system, 
 in this instance ; for no genealogy of Jesus, if he was 
 to descend from David through a female, could have 
 been framed without falsehood, according to such cus- 
 tom ; and to have proved him to be the son of David 
 at all, the female ought to have been described, sup- 
 posing her to have been so, as the daughter of Heli, 
 who was a son of David, after which her husband, if 
 such had been the fact, might have been called the 
 adopted son of Heli ; though this in reality would 
 not have assisted the genealogy in the least ; and af- 
 terwards it might have gone up from Heli. But there 
 
 x
 
 304 
 
 is not a syllable of this nature to be found in any part 
 of Scripture ; besides which, in order to have traced 
 his genealogy through the males according to the al- 
 leged custom, it ought to have been traced wholly 
 through males from whom he did descend, and not 
 through a male from whom he did not descend. 
 
 If our Lord was not the son of Joseph, neither 
 the genealogy in the supposed first chapter of St. 
 Matthew, nor that in the third chapter of St. Luke 
 proves him, as both Gospels profess to do, to have 
 been the son of David', but each of the genealogies 
 clearly gives us the genealogy of Joseph, and the one 
 as decidedly so as the other ; yet they are irrecon- 
 cileably at variance with each other, inasmuch as they 
 go up through ancestors who are totally different per- 
 sons, and descended from David in totally different 
 lines, lines so completely distinguished from each 
 other, that it is impossible to mistake the one for the 
 other; the first being the Royal line, wholly con- 
 sisting of Jewish kings, from David to the last reign- 
 ing prince of his family, and the second being a line 
 not containing one single king amongst the whole 
 number. 
 
 Under such circumstances, we must do as we are 
 obliged to do in all other cases of a similar descrip- 
 tion, and make our election between them, as both 
 cannot be true ; in doing which, I should conceive 
 there could be no hesitation in giving the preference 
 to the undisputed part of St. Luke's Gospel, over the
 
 disputed part of St. Matthew's, the latter containing a 
 genealogy we can prove to be defective, accompanied 
 by remarks about the number of generations, which 
 we know to be untrue, and followed by an account 
 in the same chapter which entirely contradicts it. 
 
 As to the discrepancies between the two ancient 
 histories of Kings and Chronicles, if they Vary in such 
 manner as to amount to contradictions, it is obvious 
 that both cannot be believed, and that we must, in a 
 similar manner, endeavour to ascertain which of the 
 two appears upon the whole to be most worthy of 
 credit, and make our election. 
 
 You say " that it was of importance to shew to the 
 Jews, that our Lord was, according to their authorized 
 records, descended from David, being legally acknow- 
 ledged the son of Joseph, and that Mary, of whom he 
 was born, was known to be of the family." I, on the 
 other hand contend, that it was not only of import- 
 ance, but absolutely necessary, to shew both to the 
 Jews and Gentiles, that he was, in point of fact, de- 
 scended from David, and not merely acknowledged 
 upon paper, or parchment, to be the son of a descend- 
 ant of David, though he was in reality no more his 
 son, than he was the son of Herod, or Augustus, ac- 
 cording to your hypothesis. If, indeed, he was not 
 the son of Joseph, as you contend, the records must 
 have been false, for they plainly aver that he was, and 
 in that case it would be of very little consequence 
 what they legally acknowledged. 
 
 x2
 
 306 
 
 In addition to this* as they do not shew him to 
 have been the 1 son of David in any other way than as 
 the son of Joseph, if this was false, they could not 
 shew to the Jews that our Lord was descended from 
 David at all, except through the medium of a direct 
 forgery, or some other unworthy artifice. Of his mo- 
 ther, not a word is said in the genealogy in the third 
 chapter of St. Luke, nor is it pretended in that given 
 in the supposed first chapter of St. Matthew, that she 
 was the daughter of David, or of any descendant of 
 David ; therefore these records could not shew to the 
 Jews that he was descended from David through her. 
 If the custom rendered it necessary that the descent 
 should be traced through the males, and the name of 
 Joseph was inserted on this account, it was a palpable 
 fraud upon the custom, and calculated to make the 
 public believe what was not true. If Joseph was only 
 the adopted son of Heli, and his name was inserted for 
 that reason, the genealogy fails in shewing Christ to 
 be any thing more than the son of David by adop- 
 tion, and does not prove him to have been of the fruit 
 of his loins. If this were the case, and one of David's 
 descendants had adopted Herod, he also would have 
 been a son of David. If Joseph's name was inserted 
 only because he was the husband of Mary, and not 
 because he was the father of Jesus, not only would the 
 alleged custom have been violated ; but as the records 
 did not shew, either that Mary was the daughter of 
 Jacob, in the supposed first chapter of St. Matthew,
 
 307 
 
 or the daughter of Heli, in the tliird chapter of St. 
 Luke ; and she must have been the daughter of both, 
 if they had, and both records had been true; saying 
 nothing of the absurdity of supposing, that there were 
 two different records, or registers, of one and the same 
 person, they could not have shewn to the Jews, that 
 Jesus was descended from David in any way. 
 
 A weaker hypothesis than this was never invented : 
 I entirely exculpate you, my friend, from having had 
 any concern in its fabrication, but regret that you 
 should have given countenance to it, probably because 
 it came down to you under the sanction of respect- 
 able names, without submitting it to a proper exami- 
 nation. Did it never occur to you, that the public re- 
 cords were in the hands of the Pharisees, or at least 
 of the ruling authorities for the time being; and that 
 it was not in the power, either of the father or mother 
 of Jesus, persons in a low condition, to make what 
 entries in them they thought proper ? If it had been, 
 any other person might have done the like, and con- 
 sequently such records would have been of no autho- 
 rity whatever, 
 
 I perceive, moreover, that you have, seemingly 
 without being sensible of it, shifted your terms upon 
 me, and have for this purpose translated ug zvopifyro, 
 instead of 'as was supposed,' " as was legally acknow- 
 ledged," meaning as was acknowledged in law, or as 
 was enrolled. I have no fault to find with this trans- 
 lation, which I know the original will bear; but if
 
 308 
 
 there was such an entry or enrolment upon record, 
 and the evangelist intended to tell us so, I should have 
 no doubt that the record was true, and that it meant 
 that he was the son of Joseph. If any historian wri- 
 ting the life of Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden, 
 had said, ' Now Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden 
 began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was 
 legally acknowledged,' or 'as was enrolled,' or 'as ap- 
 peared by the register,' using either of those phrases, 
 f the son of Charles King of Sweden,' would any 
 one have supposed for a moment, that the historian 
 designed to convey any other meaning, than that 
 Gustavus Adolphus was the son of Charles King of 
 Sweden, and that he was legally acknowledged to be 
 so, or that it was so enrolled, or that it so appeared 
 by the register, according to the phrase made use of? 
 Would any one in his senses imagine, that the histo- 
 rian knew all the while that he was not the son of 
 Charles King of Sweden ; and, what is still more ex- 
 traordinary, expected that his readers would under- 
 stand from these words, which mean that he was, 
 that in fact he was not ? It is only when the doctrine 
 of the Trinity is the subject, that such wild fancies 
 take possession of men's minds. Upon any other oc- 
 casion, the absurdity would appear so glaring, that if 
 proposed to them for their assent, they would consi- 
 der it an insult upon their understandings. Besides, 
 if the words us SO(M?ITO will bear the translation you 
 have given of them, as well as that of the common
 
 309 
 
 version, " as was supposed," which no doubt they will, 
 the argument drawn from the insertion of the words 
 "as was supposed" in this place, falls at once, it being 
 very uncertain whether the original is to be under- 
 stood in that sense, or another. 
 
 With regard to Mary, of whom he was born, being 
 known to be one of the family, I should be glad to be 
 informed what proof there is of it, and when, and by 
 whom, she was ever known to be so. I believe it will 
 turn out that there is nothing but the story of the 
 Rabbi to countenance it. The Scriptures contain no 
 such assertion. On the contrary, if the supposed first 
 chapter of St. Luke were of any authority, it would 
 be much more likely that she was of the family of 
 Aaron, than of the family of David; for we are told 
 that "Zachariah's wife was of the daughters of Aaron," 
 and that "her name was Elizabeth" (Luke i. 5); and, 
 ver. 36, the Angel is represented as informing Mary 
 that her cousin Elizabeth had conceived a son in her 
 old age. But in truth there is no evidence either way. 
 Joseph may, or he may not, have married a woman 
 of his own tribe. He may, or he may not, have mar- 
 ried a woman of his own family. The probability is 
 that he did not : and the 36th verse of this spurious 
 chapter (if the least credit were due to any thing con- 
 tained in it) would, as far as it goes, shew, or at least 
 render it highly probable, that he did not. 
 
 You remark, " that the miraculous conception not 
 being referred to as often as we might expect, is no
 
 310 
 
 more than might be said of many other things in our 
 Lord's history, the resurrection of Lazarus, for ex- 
 ample ; but that the miraculous conception is men- 
 tioned by the earliest Christians, as of the greatest 
 notoriety." Here I must remind you, that my ob- 
 jection is, that neither the miraculous conception, nor 
 any one of the numerous miraculous events related in 
 the four disputed chapters, is referred to at ALL in 
 any other part of Scripture whatever, and that the 
 omission of a single miracle, by writers who had re- 
 corded others of the same kind, which required equal 
 power, and proved the same thing, is not like the 
 omission of an entire branch of our Lord's history, 
 comprising many great and extraordinary miracles, 
 proving, if true, a most important doctrine relating 
 to his nature and character, which is not proved, men- 
 tioned, nor as much as alluded to, in any other part 
 of Scripture, either by any other Scripture writer, or 
 even by either of the two evangelists to whom it has 
 been ascribed in any subsequent part of their Gospels, 
 or by the last of them in any part of the book of Acts. 
 Six out of eight of the Scripture writers, in fact, pass 
 over the whole in profound silence, as if (which I have 
 no doubt was the case, for it cannot otherwise be ac- 
 counted for upon any rational principle.) they had 
 never heard one syllable about it; and the two who are 
 said to have mentioned it, in the disputed chapters 
 now in question, never refer to, or take the least no- 
 tice of it afterwards.
 
 311 
 
 Were not St. Peter, St. James, St. John, St. Jude, 
 St. Paul, and St. Mark, amongst the earliest, and 
 most eminent Christians ? And is it mentioned by 
 any one of them at all, much less as a matter of the 
 greatest notoriety ? Was not St. Clement, the friend 
 and companion of St. Paul, one of the earliest Chris- 
 tian writers ? Has not his Epistle to the Corinthians 
 come down to us in an entire state ? And is there one 
 word in it about the miraculous conception from the 
 beginning to the end ? 
 
 You appear to me to have misapprehended me, 
 when you say, " That men did not afterwards believe 
 in Christ on account of these things, is very true ; but 
 the same may be said of the most striking miracles 
 wrought by Christ himself; so that John said, though 
 he had wrought so many miracles among them, yet 
 believed they not on him." I was not speaking only, 
 or principally, of those who did not believe, but of 
 those who did, and stated (p. 47) that not one person 
 believed him to be the Messiah, when he afterwards 
 came forward in that character, on account of any of 
 these wonderful transactions, not even his own bro- 
 thers, who, like many of their own countrymen, did 
 not believe in him after he had begun to perform mi- 
 racles as such (John vii. 5) ; but all who did believe 
 are represented as having done so on account of the 
 miracles which he wrought in his own person, to 
 which alone he himself appealed, and never once to a 
 single occurrence related in these spurious chapters ;
 
 312 
 
 nor were any of them, mirabile dictu, ever appealed to 
 as proofs of his mission by any of his Apostles. Now 
 what answer is given, or attempted to be given, to this? 
 Nothing more or less than that " thirty years had 
 elapsed from the time these wonders were performed, 
 to that of our Lord's public appearance, and that/?er- 
 haps most of those who were impressed by them were 
 dead." 
 
 Is it possible, that any one in the sober exercise of 
 his understanding can imagine, that events so extra- 
 ordinary, and made so public, as the following, which 
 appear to have troubled the then sovereign of the 
 country, and all Jerusalem with him, should have 
 been forgotten in the short space of thirty years, 
 namely, the appearance of a company of learned stran- 
 gers at Jerusalem inquiring for a child who had been 
 born King of the Jews, and declaring publicly that 
 they had seen his star in the east, and were come to 
 worship him ; the assembling of a council of all the 
 Chief Priests and Scribes by Royal authority, to in- 
 quire where this wonderful child was to be born; the 
 sending of the strangers to Bethlehem ; the star going 
 before them till it stood over the place where the in- 
 fant was ; their finding him, and making offerings to 
 him, of gold, frankincense and myrrh, which, as they 
 made no secret, either of their visit, or the object of 
 it, must, in a strange place, particularly at an inn 
 crowded with guests, have been known to consider- 
 able numbers of people, and must of course have ex-
 
 313 
 
 cited the attention, and awakened the curiosity, of the 
 whole town and neighbourhood ; also the appearance 
 first of an angel, and afterwards of a multitude of the 
 Heavenly Host, to the shepherds near Bethlehem, an- 
 nouncing the birth of their Messiah ; their entering 
 the town, finding the child at the inn, and publish- 
 ing what they had seen and heard to every one ; his 
 public annunciation in the Temple by Simeon, to 
 whom it had been miraculously revealed ; his public 
 acknowledgement by Anna the prophetess at the same 
 time and place, who spoke of him as the Messiah to 
 all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem ; and the 
 slaughter of the innocents, supposing that not more 
 than ten or a dozen suffered ; is it to be believed, 
 that in thirty years all these things could have passed 
 clean out of the memories of most of those persons 
 who lived to the end of that period ? On the contrary, 
 all who had seen and heard of them would be likely 
 to have made them the subjects of frequent conversa- 
 tion with their friends and children, whilst a consider- 
 able proportion of them must have been still living at 
 the end of that time ; for such of them as did not ex- 
 ceed twenty years of age when they happened, could 
 not have been more than fifty when our Lord made 
 his public appearance as the Messiah. Besides, the 
 child during the whole period of his advancement to 
 manhood, after such signal miracles to announce his 
 entrance into the world, such public and repeated de- 
 clarations of him us the Messiah, must have had the
 
 314 
 
 eyes of the whole nation fixed upon him, as a great 
 and extraordinary personage, upon whom the desti- 
 nies of his country were to depend. It was impos- 
 sible that he could ever after have been lost sight of. 
 He must have been constantly talked of as the person 
 who was to make his appearance in that high and dig- 
 nified character, to which all his countrymen were 
 looking forward with the most anxious expectation ; 
 and when he did so appear, and began to perform mi- 
 racles in attestation of his Divine mission, these ex- 
 traordinary occurrences at his birth would have been 
 in every one's mouth, and have been mentioned and 
 insisted upon again and again, especially in answer to 
 those who denied his claim, because he did not hap- 
 pen to be such a Messiah as they expected. 
 
 But if others who had witnessed or heard of the 
 wonderful transactions we have just been alluding to, 
 were dead at the time our Lord first made his appear- 
 ance as the Messiah, was not Alary his mother then 
 living? and was it not natural, as they were no secrets, 
 for her to have talked of them repeatedly in her fa- 
 mily, to Jesus himself, and to his brothers and sisters, 
 as they were growing up? and if she did, why should 
 we suppose that they disbelieved her ? If there really 
 had been such transactions, so notorious and public 
 as they are represented to have been, can we account 
 for Nicodemus, who appears to have been a man of 
 consideration, and a public character among the Jews, 
 a man of letters, and a member of their council, hav-
 
 315 
 
 ing been so easily silenced, on his intimating to the 
 Pharisees that Jesus ought to be heard, in order to 
 determine whether he was the Christ, by their bidding 
 him search and look, for that out of Galilee arose no 
 prophet ? Would it not have been most easy for him 
 to have said, if it had been so, ' That is no answer, for 
 Jesus was born at Bethlehem, where, according to 
 your construction of the Prophets, the Messiah ought 
 to have been born.* All these considerations, added 
 to the entire silence of Matthew and Luke themselves 
 in all the subsequent parts of their respective gospels, 
 and of the rest of the Evangelists, and all the other 
 Scripture writers, must, one should think, lead inevi- 
 tably to the conclusion, that the supposed facts de- 
 tailed in these disputed chapters had in reality no ex- 
 istence. 
 
 I leave it to the advocates for the genuineness of 
 the chapters in question, to reconcile the different ac- 
 counts they give of these transactions ; for in the two 
 supposed first chapters of St. Matthew, we are in- 
 formed that the wise men having made their offer- 
 ings, being warned of God not to return to Herod, 
 departed into their own country another way ; that 
 when they were departed, an angel appeared to Joseph 
 in a dream, commanding him to arise, and take the 
 young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, be- 
 cause Herod would seek the young child to destroy 
 him ; that he thereupon arose, and took the child and 
 his mother by night, and departed into Egypt ; and
 
 316 
 
 that Herod finding that he was deceived by the wise 
 men, sent and slew all the male children in Bethle- 
 hem under two years old. In the two supposed first 
 chapters of St. Luke, we have not a word of this ; but 
 on the contrary are informed, that after waiting very 
 tranquilly for forty-one days, that is, until the days of 
 Mary's purification were completed, they brought him 
 without the least scruple or alarm, as if they had 
 never heard that he was in the least danger, to the 
 very place, of all others, where Herod his great enemy, 
 who sought to destroy him, was, that is, to Jerusalem, 
 for the purpose of presenting him to the Lord in the 
 Temple, the most public place there, and in the most 
 public manner, and openly offering a sacrifice for him; 
 upon which occasion he was immediately recognised, 
 without any reserve or concealment, by Simeon and 
 Anna, and made the subject of general conversation ; 
 and that when they had performed all things accord- 
 ing to law upon this occasion, Herod with his myr- 
 midons being all the while upon the very spot, they 
 went very quietly not into Egypt,, but back into Ga- 
 lilee, to their own city Nazareth, where it does not 
 appear by the two supposed first chapters of Matthew, 
 that Joseph or Mary had ever been before, but on the 
 contrary, that on their return from Egypt, the former 
 being warned of God, they turned aside into the parts 
 of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Naza- 
 reth, not because it was their own city, the place of 
 their former residence, but that a prophecy might be
 
 317 
 
 fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene. Nor 
 can it be said, as has been pretended, that these con- 
 tradictory accounts relate to different times ; for both 
 are fixed to the time of our Lord's birth, with a par- 
 ticularity that renders it impossible to be mistaken, 
 the supposed second chapter of St. Matthew saying, 
 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea 
 in the days of Herod the king, behold there came 
 wise men from the East, to Jerusalem," &c. ; whilst the 
 supposed second chapter of St. Luke relates his being 
 born at Bethlehem, and laid in a manger, where he 
 was found by the shepherds who had seen the angels, 
 by one of whom they were informed of it. 
 Having made these remarks upon some of the con- 
 tradictions and inconsistencies between the supposed 
 two first chapters of St. Matthew, and the supposed 
 two first chapters of St. Luke, I shall now offer you a 
 few observations upon a single specimen of the mat- 
 ters related in the latter,* from which it appears to me 
 to be demonstrable, that they never could have pro- 
 ceeded from the pen of the Evangelist, or of any per- 
 son writing true history, or in the least acquainted, 
 
 * I could easily have selected more, had it been necessary. If, 
 for example, after having calculated from what is laid down Luke 
 iii. 1, which is undisputed, in what year of the reign of Augustus 
 our Lord was born, you will ascertain, and compare with it, the 
 several years of that Emperor's reign, in which Herod and his suc- 
 cessor Archelaus died, in which Cyrenius was governor of Syria, 
 and in which Judea was reduced to the state of a Roman province 
 so as to be taxed by the Romans like the rest of their provinces, 
 whiff h it was not whilst it was under its own Kings or Princes, 
 you will soon find that you have raised objections to the authen- 
 ticity and credit of the statements contained in the second chapter 
 of the most serious and formidable nature.
 
 318 
 
 either with the facts, or with the nature of the sub- 
 jects, he professes to give an account of. It is said 
 in the supposed second chapter of St. Luke, that 
 " there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that 
 all the world should be taxed, and that all went to be 
 taxed, every one into his own city, and that Joseph 
 also went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth, 
 unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, 
 because he was of the house and lineage of David, to 
 be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with 
 child." Now in the first place it is observable, that the 
 statement is, that all went to be taxed, every one into 
 his own city, but that Joseph went out of HIS own city, 
 in which he dwelt, unto Bethlehem, which was not his 
 own city, but a city where one of his remote ancestors, 
 more than seven hundred years before, had lived during 
 a part, and that the shortest and least conspicuous and 
 celebrated part, of his life. Let it be supposed, however, 
 to have been the intention of this writer, as it would 
 seem to have been, and indeed must have been, to 
 render him at all consistent, to have represented the 
 meaning of the decree to have been, that each should 
 go up to be taxed to the city where one of his remote 
 ancestors, the founder of his family, had been born, 
 and lived, though he had never lived there himself. 
 
 The absurdity of such a scheme is glaring, and I 
 will venture to say, without the slightest hesitation, 
 that it was utterly impossible that it should ever have 
 been carried into effect, even if the Roman govern- 
 ment (which under Augustus was not composed either
 
 319 
 
 of fools or madmen, could have thought of any mea- 
 sure so preposterous. What could be more absurd 
 or impolitic, and more likely to defeat its own ends, 
 than to compel people, and especially the lower sort 
 of people, who are always the most numerous, to tra- 
 vel from the places where they resided, to other and 
 frequently distant places, in order to pay a small an- 
 nual tax, which might with more ease, and greater 
 certainty, have been collected from them in the places 
 where they respectively dwelt, to compel them to spend 
 perhaps five times the amount of the tax in travelling : 
 to expend possibly a pound or more, to pay probably 
 the didrachm, value fifteen pence ? Many of the com- 
 mon people might have been expected to spend all 
 their money in travelling, and to have nothing left to 
 pay the tax when they arrived at the places of their 
 destination. Multitudes, to whom the payment of any 
 poll-tax would be distressing, as it has always proved 
 in every country where it has been tried, would, if they 
 could have raised the tribute money itself, have been 
 utterly incapable of raising a fund for the travelling 
 expenses of themselves and their wives ; and the com- 
 pelling them to go in order to pay the tax to the city 
 where the family from which they had sprung was 
 originally settled, would have been the very acme of 
 folly, as this would have imposed the further difficulty 
 of finding out, and proving, if necessary, where it-was; 
 and how could the tax-gatherers have investigated all 
 
 Y
 
 320 
 
 this, and ascertained that the tax was paid in the right 
 place ? How could the tax-gatherers at Bethlehem, 
 for instance, have known what members of families 
 which had hundreds of years before been settled there, 
 were then living at Jerusalem, or other places more 
 distant, and that they had all made their appearance 
 at Bethlehem to pay the tax ? Supposing it to have 
 been in their power to have done all this, why should 
 such unnecessary trouble have been imposed upon 
 them, and both trouble and expense, together with 
 great loss of time, upon the unfortunate payers of the 
 tax ? What would it have signified to the government, 
 where the tax was paid, provided it was paid at all ? 
 and would they have resorted to such a ridiculous and 
 oppressive mode of payment, as every one must see at 
 a glance, would have rendered it in a great measure 
 abortive ? 
 
 Let us suppose a poll-tax of half a crown to be im- 
 posed in this kingdom, and such a plan to be resorted 
 to in order to realize it. Would all the power of the 
 country be able to send the population of London, or 
 Edinburgh, upon their travels ? And yet upon the same 
 principle, which is supposed to have rendered it ne- 
 cessary for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem, the greater 
 part of them would be obliged to go, and to take their 
 wives with them too, though in the most advanced 
 stage of pregnancy. Nor would this be one hundredth 
 part of the evil ; for we should have people travelling
 
 321 
 
 from York to Cornwall, and from Cornwall to York, 
 from England to Scotland and Ireland, and from those 
 parts of the kingdom to England. In short, the whole 
 country would be in a state of universal commotion, 
 and the roads full of travellers, most of them without 
 adequate means of conveyance ; and this to be repeated 
 every year. What statesman or magistrate, indeed 
 what person of common sense, would not laugh at 
 such a scheme if it were proposed, and predict with 
 perfect certainty, that it would prove an abortion in 
 the first instance ? 
 
 Upon the supposition of its having been universal, 
 as it is here represented, at least in the common ver- 
 sion, throughout all the world, meaning all the pro- 
 vinces of the Roman empire ; it would have been ob- 
 ligatory upon all the Jews settled in Europe, Asia and 
 Africa, to have travelled into Palestine to pay their 
 tax, and upon the people of the various other nations 
 of which the Roman empire was then composed, 
 whose families had been comfortably and quietly 
 settled, some of them perhaps for ages, in the city 
 of Rome, or in other cities of the empire, at a di- 
 stance from the provinces formerly inhabited by their 
 forefathers, to have travelled back to the countries 
 of their respective ancestors, to pay their several 
 proportions of the same miserable tax, which might, 
 with so much more advantage, both to government 
 and people, have been collected from them at home.
 
 32*2 
 
 In short, the whole empire must have been in a state of 
 confusion, if not of complete anarchy*. 
 
 When Joseph arrived at Bethlehem, it does not ap- 
 pear that he knew a single person there. The pre- 
 sumption is, that he did not, for he was not received 
 into the house of any relation, friend or acquaintance; 
 but was obliged to take refuge at an inn, where there 
 was not room for him, and the only accommodation 
 he could obtain, is represented to have been in a 
 stable ; the writer not reflecting, that the same uni- 
 versal travelling, which made the inn overflow with 
 guests, would fill the stable also with their horses, and 
 that if there was not one person of common humanity 
 among them, who would give up his bed to a lying-in- 
 woman, the wife of a descendant of one of their most 
 ancient and renowned kings, it is riot very likely that 
 they would have accommodated her, by consenting to 
 the removal of their horses from the stable ; nor must 
 we imagine, if Joseph had had a single relation or 
 acquaintance in the place, that he could not have 
 been accommodated under such trying circumstances 
 with some vacant apartment in the town ; since, though 
 
 the general travelling then taking place, would natu- 
 
 . 
 
 * Some have translated cw/isapEcrSa*, to be enrolled or regis- 
 tered, instead of to be taxed ; but an attempt to compel such mul- 
 titudes to set out upon their travels, that they might be enrolled or 
 registered in distant places where their remote ancestors happened 
 to live, if they could have discovered where such places were, would 
 have been equally ridiculous, preposterous and impracticable.
 
 rally crowd the inns, it would make but little differ- 
 ence as to private houses ; for the same cause that 
 brought some from other places to Bethlehem, would 
 take away others who lived at Bethlehem, from thence 
 to other places. But it must be needless to enlarge 
 further upon such an account as this, or to do more 
 than to appeal to the candid consideration of every 
 man of understanding, whether he can think it pos- 
 sible, that it ever proceeded from St. Luke, who has 
 written so correctly, so consistently, and so well, in 
 the undisputed parts of his history. 
 
 You cite the passage John xii. 37 41 to prove 
 that Christ was believed by John, to be the Lord of 
 Hosts according to your view of the commencement 
 of his Gospel, that is, I apprehend, the Trinitarian 
 view of him as the second person in the Trinity, co- 
 equal, and co-eternal, with the Father. But if John 
 had believed this stupendous doctrine, would he not 
 have told us so in some part or other of his Gospel, he 
 being one of those who were specially commissioned 
 to declare the whole counsel of God to mankind, to 
 preach the Gospel, not a part of it only, to every 
 creature ? Would he have permitted a most import- 
 ant branch of Christianity, upon the belief of which 
 the salvation of mankind is made to depend, to be 
 picked up, and made out, by mere inference and im- 
 plication, by referring to the.writings of one of the 
 prophets, which are referred to, not for that, but for 
 another arid different purpose altogether ?
 
 324 
 
 Let us consider what the design of the Apostle was, 
 in quoting the passage in question, taking it as it now 
 stands. Was it to prove that Christ was the Lord of 
 Hosts ? No such thing ; but to account for the un- 
 belief of the Jews by shewing that it had been before 
 predicted by the prophet Isaiah, and then took place 
 for the fulfilment of that prophecy. I should not 
 think it at all probable, therefore, that he designed 
 that we should turn to the passage in Isaiah, and in- 
 fer from it, that which he says nothing about in his 
 Gospel, though it would have been of the utmost im- 
 portance if true, namely, that Christ is the Lord of 
 Hosts. For that reason the interpretation of this 
 passage which has been proposed by Grotius, Dr. 
 Clarke, and the Unitarians, seems to me to be much 
 preferable to that of the Trinitarians, namely, that 
 when John says, ver. 41, "These things said Esaias 
 when he saw his glory, and spake of him," he meant 
 to represent that Esaias being a prophet foresaw the 
 glory of Christ, as Abraham, it is said, John viii. 56, 
 saw his day, that is, foresaw it in prophetic vision 
 many centuries before its actual arrival. 
 
 It appears that the Apostle John, in the passage in 
 question, quotes two different parts of the prophet 
 Isaiah, namely, that in the 53d chapter which he re- 
 fers to first, and that in the sixth chapter which he 
 cites afterwards ; and then proceeds, "These things 
 said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him." 
 Now it is quite plain, that the first of the things
 
 325 
 
 which Esaias is represented to have said when he saw 
 his glory, and spake of him, is that which is to be 
 found in the 53d chapter of Isaiah, which relates 
 wholly to what Christ should be after his birth, re- 
 presenting that he should grow up before him, which 
 must mean another, and that other, Jehovah the Fa- 
 ther, as a tender plant, &c.; that he was a man of sor- 
 rows and acquainted with grief, &c. ; that Jehovah 
 had laid on him the iniquity of us all, distinguishing 
 him thus from Jehovah throughout, and representing 
 Jehovah as the actor, and Christ as the sufferer; yet 
 it pleased Jehovah to bruise him, &c. After this, 
 comes the prophecy of his glory, ver. 1 2, " Therefore 
 will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall 
 divide the spoil with the strong." But it is evident, 
 that this glory was not in existence, but only in pro- 
 spect, when Isaiah wrote ; and therefore when John 
 says, that Esaias saw it, he must have meant that he 
 foresaw it as a prophet, and this was the glory of 
 Christ, was his glory, as the Apostle expresses it. 
 
 I have no doubt however in my own mind, though 
 I cannot expect you to go along with me, that the 
 39th and 40th verses are an interpolation, a marginal 
 gloss probably, which has found its way, as many 
 have done in different MSS., into the text, and has 
 been rather clumsily put into the wrong place ; for 
 after quoting the 53d chapter of Isaiah, the Apostle 
 is made to say, " Therefore they could not believe, be- 
 cause that Esaias said again ;" and then instead of
 
 326 ' 
 
 stating any thing that Isaiah said afterwards, the 
 Apostle is made to quote something he had said long 
 before, in the sixth chapter, in which chapter there is 
 not a single allusion made to the name, person, cha- 
 racter, or office of the Messiah, or Christ, or to any 
 thing he was to do in that or any other character ; 
 and the making of the heart of the Jewish people fat, 
 their ears heavy, and shutting their eyes, was to last 
 no longer than " till the cities should be wasted with- 
 out inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the 
 land should be utterly desolate, and Jehovah should 
 have removed man far away, and there should be a 
 great forsaking in the midst' of the land," that is, till 
 the Babylonish captivity, when we know that all these 
 events were fully accomplished, after which we know 
 also, that there was a return as predicted in the thir- 
 teenth verse of the same chapter, and the cities were 
 re-peopled, and the land in our Saviour's time, full of 
 inhabitants ; from which it is manifest, that the pre- 
 diction could not refer to the blindness or unbelief of 
 the Jews at the time of our Lord's appearance ; con- 
 sequently their not believing them, could be no ful- 
 filment of that which, according to the sixth chapter 
 of Isaiah, was to terminate ages before, for which 
 reason the passage was not fit to be quoted, and in- 
 troduced where it is. But some transcriber or pro- 
 prietor of a MS. probably seeing an allusion to one 
 prophecy of Isaiah which in point of fact did allude 
 to our Saviour's appearance, sufferings, arid exalta-
 
 327 
 
 tion, and fancying, though he was mistaken, that he 
 had found another in the same prophet, transcribed 
 it into the margin, where being found by a subsequent 
 copyist, it was, as we know many such were, inserted 
 in the text, and carelessly put into the wrong place, 
 where it disturbs the sense of the whole, and intro- 
 duces the absurdity of supposing that the Apostle 
 having used the word 'saw,' only once, intended to use 
 it in two different senses at one and the same time, 
 that is, in the sense of 'saw,' and 'foresaw.' 
 
 I admit that this interpolation must have taken 
 place before the writing of any now existing MS. ; but 
 having proofs from the present state of many of the 
 MSS. still extant, that alterations have been made 
 in the text, sometimes negligently, and at others in- 
 tentionally in favour of the then prevailing doctrines^ 
 which we have, even at this late period of time, been 
 able to detect, and have in consequence repudiated 
 them, why are we to suppose, that during the three 
 centuries which intervened between the writing of the 
 earliest of them, and the death of the Apostles, there 
 were not some made in the earlier, and now non-ex- 
 isting MSS., which having been copied into the suc- 
 ceeding ones, which are at present extant, we have 
 no means now, by MSS. alone, to prove them to be 
 such, and therefore cannot absolutely strike them out, 
 though an attentive examination will shew us, that 
 there is intrinsic evidence sufficient to enable us to 
 determine what they are, or at least to convince us
 
 328 
 
 that we are not entitled to place any reliance upon 
 them as authorities ? 
 
 It must not be omitted however, that eleven of the 
 MSS. and ancient versions exhibit various readings, 
 
 o 
 
 which destroy the Trinitarian construction of the pas- 
 sage entirely. Of these the Leicester MS., the Copt. 
 Sahid. Syr. Hierosl. Syr. p. etrec. in m. and Vulg. 
 versions, omit the word avrov, and substitute the 
 words rov Qsov, and the Cambr. MS. which was Beza's, 
 and is of the highest antiquity, and Gale's MS.,, im- 
 mediately before avrov insert rov 00y; whilst the Latin 
 version of the Gimbr. MS. reads Dei sui, which pro- 
 bably induced Dr. Harwood to give us this text, Tau- 
 ra c)g srirzv E<ra/ ore eibz rr,v &>f#y rov Qsov ZKI gXatajers 
 n^i avrov, that is, These things said Esaias when he 
 saw the glory of God, and spake of him ; but this 
 would not remove the objection, even if there were 
 more MSS. in support of it, that the Apostle must 
 still be supposed to have made use of the same word 
 in two different senses at one and the same time, all 
 that is referred to in the 53d chapter relating to events 
 that were to take place relative to the Messiah, after 
 his birth, and consequently could only have been fore- 
 seen ; for which reason there would still be intrinsic 
 evidence for considering the last quotation from Isaiah 
 to be an interpolation. 
 
 After this investigation, let me ask you, whether 
 such an obscure reference as this, made, if in fact 
 made at all, for a totally different purpose, and sur-
 
 329 
 
 rounded as it is with doubtful and suspicious circum- 
 stances, can, with the least propriety, be dignified 
 with the name of a proof. But supposing that such 
 an amazing doctrine could be set up on a mere infe- 
 rence, it might be rebutted, and thrown down again 
 immediately, by a much clearer and stronger inference 
 in the first chapter of the Hebrews, where Christ is de- 
 clared to be the son of that God who spake to the 
 fathers by the prophets ; and consequently the Lord 
 of Hosts, whose glory the prophet Isaiah saw, and 
 who spake by him to the Jews, commanding him to 
 tell them to hear, but understand not, and see, but 
 perceive not, &c., Isaiah vi. 9, was the Father of 
 Christ, and not Christ himself. 
 
 You tell me "that the prophecy in Isaiah vii. 14, 
 that a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall 
 call his name Immanuel, which I have remarked 
 upon, page 48, is not, as I supposed, misapplied ; for 
 that the name Immanuel signifies, as the use the 
 prophet makes of it shews, God with us, to save us ; 
 and that Jesus signifies the same thing, for it does 
 not mean simply Saviour, but Jehovah the Saviour." 
 This is any thing but an answer ; for 1 still maintain, 
 that a prophecy that a virgin shall call her son Im- 
 manuel, is not fulfilled by a virgin calling her son 
 Jesus, even if they meant the same thing. We have 
 other names in common use, which mean the very 
 same thing, as Gabriel and Ezekiel for instance, both 
 of which mean the strength of God; but if a woman
 
 330 
 
 were commanded to call her son Gabriel, we should 
 not think she had obeyed the command, if she called 
 him Ezekiel. According to this curious interpreta- 
 tion, the prophecy would have been equally fulfilled, 
 if the supposed virgin had called her son Hoshaiah, 
 or Isaiah, or even Eliphalet. But I deny that the two 
 words mean the same thing. Immanuel means sim- 
 ply God with us. For whatever purpose God is to be 
 with us upon a particular occasion, does not alter the 
 meaning of the word itself. God may be with us 
 either to save, or to comfort, or to bless, or to in- 
 struct us ; but for which ever of these purposes he 
 deigns to favour us with his special presence, the 
 meaning of the word Immanuel remains the same, 
 and it does not denote the purpose for which God is 
 with us. Taking Jesus to mean Jehovah the Saviour, 
 it means that only, and not that Jehovah the Saviour 
 is with us, or even that he is to save us. Neither the 
 names, nor the meanings of them, therefore, are the 
 same. 
 
 Having shewn, page 136, that the giving of the 
 name Jehoshua, supposing him to have been a type of 
 Christ, not proving him to have been Jehovah, the 
 giving it to Christ the antitype, did not advance us a 
 step in the proof that the latter was Jehovah, I should 
 not have entered upon the subject again, if it bad not 
 been for your stating, " that Hoshea, the original 
 name of the celebrated successor of Moses, signifies 
 Saviour, but that when God selected him to become
 
 331 
 
 a type of Christ, and a distinguished instrument in 
 the hand of God to save Israel, he added a part of the 
 name Jehovah, to make it Jehoshua, which was con- 
 tracted into Joshua, the name from which Jesus 
 comes ; and that this name, which is equivalent to Im- 
 manuel, has superseded the latter, is not wonderful." 
 But having read this, I naturally turned to the pas- 
 sage, Numb. xiii. 16, where the name Jehoshua is 
 given to Joshua, to see whether it informs us, that 
 this name was in fact given to Joshua, when God 
 selected him to become a type of Christ, and a di- 
 stinguished instrument to save Israel; or states that 
 Joshua was selected to become a type of Christ at 
 all ; and was much surprised to find, that you had not 
 been more careful to secure your ground, before you 
 made the assertion; for there is not a word to be found 
 in it, denoting that Joshua was selected to become a 
 type of Christ at all, much less that the name was 
 given to him when he was so selected for that pur- 
 pose ; nor does it even appear to have been given to 
 him when he was selected to become a distinguished 
 instrument in the hand of God to save Israel : but on 
 the contrary it is stated, that it was given to him 
 when he was selected to be a spy in conjunction with 
 eleven others. In that character he could not be a 
 type of Christ, and it does not appear that he was in- 
 vested with any other upon that occasion. It is sin- 
 gular, likewise, upon your supposition, that instead 
 of saving Israel, the object of the expedition failed,
 
 and they not only derived no benefit from it, but it 
 proved the occasion of their being sent back to wan- 
 der in the wilderness, till all their men of war, except 
 Joshua himself and one more, perished there. 
 
 You urge, " that the Jewish phrase of calling a per- 
 son by a particular name, does not necessarily imply, 
 that he should actually be spoken of, or to, by that 
 as a common appellation ; for that otherwise Christ 
 must have been called by a host of names, e. g. Won- 
 derful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, 
 Prince of Peace, Jehovah our Righteousness, the 
 Branch, &c., and that all that was intended was, that 
 he should be considered as all that was included in 
 the name Immanuel, that in the same way, I may 
 observe, that the land of Judea was never actually 
 called Hephsibah, nor Beulah." I answer, that if 
 you had proved, that it had been predicted that our 
 blessed Lord was to be called by all these names, and 
 many more, it would have amounted to nothing for 
 the present purpose, inasmuch as saying generally 
 that a great, wise, and illustrious prince shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, and the like, or that the city 
 of Jerusalem shall be called Hephsibah, meaning my 
 delight, or a country Beulah, a Married Land, that 
 is, married to its cultivators, and saying that a child 
 about to be born, shall be called by \nafather or mo- 
 ther George, or Charles, are manifestly totally diffe- 
 rent things, the latter so evidently pointing to the 
 name which his parents should give him, as his ap-
 
 propriate appellation, that it would be merely wasting 
 words to offer to prove it. To shew that what was 
 meant by it, was perfectly well understood, even ac- 
 cording to these writers themselves, they inform us, 
 that when our Lord's parents were commanded by 
 the Angel to call his name Jesus, they instantly com- 
 plied, and did not call him Joshua, or Immanuel, or 
 any other name, which by a very difficult and strained 
 construction, might be supposed to mean something 
 like it. 
 
 As to the city of Jerusalem, never having been ac- 
 tually called Hephsibah, nor the land of Judea, Beu- 
 lah, that has not happened, whether the prediction is 
 to be understood literally or not, for the best of all 
 reasons, namely, that the time when it is predicted 
 that they shall be so called, has not yet arrived. See 
 Isaiah, chapter Ixii, where any one who chooses to 
 consult the passage relating to it, will perceive at the 
 first glance, that they are not to receive those names, 
 till the final restoration of the Jews to the land of 
 their fathers ; for it is not to happen " till the Gen- 
 tiles shall have seen the righteousness of Jerusalem, 
 and all the kings its glory, till it shall no more be 
 termed forsaken, nor its land any more be termed 
 desolate ; when its corn shall no more be given to 
 be meat for its enemies, nor shall the sons of the 
 stranger drink its wine ; but they that have gathered 
 it, shall eat it and praise the Lord, and they that have 
 brought it together, shall drink it, in the courts of
 
 his holiness." But is not Jerusalem at this very mo- 
 ment forsaken ? Is not her land at this moment 
 termed desolate ? Is not its corn still given to be meat 
 for its enemies ? Do they that have gathered it, eat 
 it and praise the Lord ? or do they that have brought 
 it together, drink it in the courts of his holiness ? If 
 you had maturely considered the nature of the pro- 
 phecy, my dear Sir, I am fully persuaded you would 
 never have produced this as an argument. 
 
 In reply to the arguments adduced in my former 
 Letter, page 49, to shew that the birth of the Mes- 
 siah ages after, could not be a sign of a deliverance 
 to be wrought almost immediately ; your words are : 
 " It was not intended, as you seem to suppose, to 
 give a sign to the King. He had from secret infi- 
 delity, refused to accept the offer God made him, of 
 having any sign he chose wrought for him, and now 
 Jehovah turns from the King, and the unbelieving 
 part of the people, to the pious Israelites who 
 trembled for their invaded country, more from reli- 
 gion, than from nationality, and their faith he cheers 
 by that which had always the most powerful effect on 
 a genuine Israelite, a new promise of the Messiah ; 
 and they knew the nation was kept distinct, and Pa- 
 lestine secured to them, because their Messiah was 
 to take our nature. It is supposed by some, that the 
 Prophet was commanded to take Shear Jashub his son 
 with him, in order to turn to him, and say, Before 
 this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
 
 .33.5 
 
 good, the land thou dreadest shall he deprived of both 
 her kings; that is, Syria and Israel are so far from be- 
 ing destined to the Empire they seek over Judah, 
 that they are both to become provinces of the victo- 
 rious Assyria. I do not however doubt, that God 
 speaks of the child to be born of the f^irgin, as the 
 word is most properly rendered; and the reasoning is, 
 before the same length of time as shall elapse from 
 the conception of that Virgin, to her child's being 
 able to refuse the evil and choose the good, that is, 
 before he shall be as old as Shear Jashub was then, 
 perhaps three years, the lands in question shall be 
 conquered by the Assyrians, which accordingly hap- 
 pened. That the Prophet meant the Messiah, and 
 no child immediately to be born, is evident from his 
 afterwards calling Judea Immanuel's land." 
 
 I am sorry to be obliged to observe, that these 
 are not only assertions without proof, but that they 
 are completely contradicted by the prophecy itself, to 
 which I must now call your attention. How does it 
 appear that it was not intended to give a sign to the 
 King ; and where is it said, that Jehovah turned from 
 him, and the unbelieving part of the people, to the 
 pious Israelites ? Is it not clear from the 13th verse, 
 " Hear ye now, O house of David. Is it a small 
 thing for you to weary man, but will ye weary my 
 God also?" that Isaiah was continuing his address to 
 the very same persons, who had wearied him and his 
 God too, to the house of David, including the King
 
 336 
 
 himself, and not* turning from them to certain other 
 supposed pious Israelites, of whom the Prophet does 
 not say a word? Is it not equally manifest from the 
 16th and 17th verses, that the King himself, as the 
 head of the house of David, was the person princi- 
 pally addressed upon this occasion, the Prophet pro- 
 ceeding to say, in the former of these verses, " for 
 before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and 
 choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall 
 be forsaken of both her kings ; and in the latter, the 
 Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and 
 upon tHy father's house, days that have not come from 
 tbe day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the 
 king of Assyria ?" The rest of your remarks which 
 depend upon these, are equally fanciful, and imagi- 
 nary. We are still to learn, that this was a new, or 
 any promise of the Messiah, or that the pious Israel- 
 ites knew that Palestine was to be secured to them 
 because their Messiah was to take our nature, not 
 one syllable of which appears in the prophecy, and 
 which was not the fact ; for instead of being secured 
 to them on that, or any other account, it was more 
 than once successfully invaded, and all but the city 
 of Jerusalem taken, previous to the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity, and at that memorable epoch, the city itself, 
 together with the rest of the country, was taken from 
 them, and they were carried away captives into a fo- 
 reign land. 
 
 The speculation you refer to, that Shear Jashub, the
 
 337 
 
 Prophet's son, is the child alluded to in the 1 6th verse 
 is answered by reading that, and the two preceding 
 verses; from which it is manifest, that the very same 
 child, a child not then born, is spoken of in all three : 
 for in the 14th verse it was predicted, that a young 
 woman should bear a son ; in the 15th verse, that he 
 should eat butter and honey, and why, that he might 
 know to refuse the evil and choose the good ; and in 
 the 16th, that before the child should know to refuse 
 the evil and choose the good, which, as had just be- 
 fore been mentioned, he was to eat butter and honey 
 to acquire the knowledge of, the land that Ahaz ab- 
 horred should be forsaken of both her kings. 
 
 But your own speculation, that God speaks of the 
 child to be born of the virgin, and that the meaning 
 is, that before the same length of time as shall elapse 
 from the conception of that virgin to her child's be- 
 ing able to refuse the evil and choose the good, that 
 
 is, before he shall be as old as Shear Jashub was then, 
 
 i 
 
 the land that thou dreadest shall be conquered by the 
 Assyrian, is equally untenable ; for in the first place, 
 there is no allusion made either to Shear Jashub, or 
 to his age ; secondly, it is not said, that before the 
 same length of time as shall elapse from the concep- 
 tion of the virgin to her child's being able to refuse 
 the evil and choose the good, that is, before he should 
 be as old as Shear Jashub was then, the land should 
 be forsaken, which is a mere arbitrary gloss, without 
 any foundation for it in the text, which says expressly, 
 
 z'2
 
 338 
 
 that it should happen before that child should know 
 to refuse the evil and choose the good, whether he 
 should know it before or after he should he as old as 
 Shear Jashub, indeed without any reference at all, 
 either to Shear Jashub, or his age : and thirdly, it 
 would be most ridiculous to say, that such an event 
 would happen before the child should know to refuse 
 the evil and choose the good, and gravely to inform 
 us, that he should eat butter and honey to enable him 
 
 J 
 
 to do it, when the event was in fact to take place 
 seven hundred years before his birth. It appears to 
 me, that it would be an outrage upon common sense, 
 to propose to any set of men as a sign of an unhoped 
 for and unexpected event, which it was predicted 
 should happen within two or three years, another 
 event still more extraordinary, which was not to hap- 
 pen till hundreds of years after they should be all in 
 their graves: and why should we make all these forced, 
 unnatural, and fanciful conjectures, when there is an 
 easy and obvious interpretation, which makes the 
 sign, as it ought to do, not only precede the event, 
 but happen very shortly after, in the life-time of all 
 who heard the prophecy ? 
 
 To suppose that the mere repetition of an old pro- 
 mise, which had not been performed, and was not to 
 be so for many centuries, could rationally be proposed 
 for a sign, that a new promise should be fulfilled very 
 shortly, a supposition which has nothing whatever in 
 the text to support it, and is also entirely a creature
 
 341 
 
 the counsel of their enemies against them should 
 come to nought, for God was with them : the first 
 referring to the child to whom the name was to be 
 given, merely as a sign that God was with his coun- 
 trymen the Jews ; the second, to the land in which 
 they dwelt, calling it the land of God who was with 
 them ; and the third, to the people of that land, an- 
 nouncing to them that the counsel of their enemies 
 against them, should come to nought, for God was 
 with them. Taking all three together, as they were 
 all spoken for the same purpose, that is, to assure the 
 Jews, that the existing combination against them 
 should fail, it is quite manifest, that the only God 
 who is stated to have been with the Jews upon this 
 occasion, in all three instances, was that God who 
 spake to the fathers by the prophets, who in this in- 
 stance spake to them by the prophet Isaiah, and who 
 in the New Testament is declared to have been the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, not our 
 Lord Jesus Christ himself; that the only child refer- 
 red to, was a child then born, or about to be born, 
 and not the Messiah, who, whatever he was, was not 
 born till seven hundred years after, and not being 
 then in existence, could not have been with them. 
 As to any supposed pre-existing Divine Logos, no 
 such idea appears to have entered the mind of the pro- 
 phet, or any of his audience, nor is there the most 
 distant allusion to any such imaginary personage. 
 I must not forget to mention, however, that I have
 
 342 
 
 been arguing upon this prophecy, on the supposition 
 that the word mn is correctly rendered in the com- 
 mon version, shall conceive, and shewing that it is 
 not an authority for you, though no objection be made 
 upon that ground : but when this conies to be further 
 inquired into, it raises a further most formidable ob- 
 stacle to your hypothesis, inasmuch as that word as 
 stated, I find to be in the past, and to mean has con- 
 ceived, or taking it in the most favourable way for 
 you, can only be considered as a participle present, 
 meaning is conceiving, in either of which cases the 
 conclusion is irresistible, that it referred clearly to a 
 young woman who had then conceived, or was con- 
 ceiving, and consequently could not have been a vir- 
 gin, much less a virgin then unborn, and to a child 
 who was then conceived or conceiving, and conse- 
 quently was very shortly after to come into the world, 
 and not to a child to be conceived and born seven 
 hundred years after. 
 
 The further we advance in the examination of this 
 prophecy, the more we find, that it discredits the sup- 
 posed first chapter of St. Matthew, instead of sup- 
 porting it, as it appears with increasing evidence to 
 be no prediction relating to the Messiah at all, much 
 less that he should be conceived and born of a virgin. 
 
 You mistake me, if you suppose that my remarks 
 on the incarnation relate in any considerable degree 
 to the mode of it. My great object throughout has 
 been to denv the fact, and to shew that in whatever
 
 343 
 
 manner it is believed by its advocates to exist, there 
 is no foundation for the doctrine itself, either in the 
 Old or the New Testament; that they have been mis- 
 taken in the texts they have cited in support of it ; 
 and that there are numerous passages in the Scrip- 
 tures which are inconsistent with it. In these respects 
 I think I have succeeded, but have troubled myself 
 very little about the alleged mode of existence of 
 what I consider to be a non-entity. Wherever I may 
 have touched upon it at all, it has been but slightly, 
 and principally for the purpose of shewing, that the 
 explanations given of it by the supporters of the doc- 
 trine, were inconsistent with each other, or led to ab- 
 surdities : but it was no doubt extremely convenient 
 to pass over my arguments in opposition to the fact 
 of the incarnation, which constituted the strongest 
 and most material parts of my observations upon the 
 subject, by saying, " All your remarks concerning the 
 mode of the incarnation are answered by the simple 
 consideration, that we know not the mode in which 
 the Deity operates in any case." We certainly do not 
 know the precise manner in which the Deity operates 
 upon any occasion, unless he is pleased to reveal it to 
 us, nor did I ever say, or suppose, that we do. But 
 if you yourself tell us, that he does operate in a par- 
 ticular way, that is, in becoming incarnate in a man, 
 and require us to believe it, we are entitled to call 
 upon you to prove such an extraordinary assertion, 
 which you have failed to comply with.
 
 344 
 
 You add, " that in this the account of the incarna- 
 tion bears marks of genuine Scripture, that it is not 
 attempted to explain the mode, as the Schoolmen af- 
 terwards did." If this be a mark of genuine Scrip- 
 ture, then if there had been an account of the Logos 
 having been incarnate in Moses, without attempting 
 to explain the mode of his incarnation, it would have 
 borne marks of genuine Scripture. But do not the 
 supposed accounts of the incarnation of our Lord con- 
 tain any attempt at all to explain the mode of his sup- 
 posed incarnation ? Does not the supposed first chap- 
 ter of St. Matthew, verse 18, say that Mary his mo- 
 ther was found with child by the Holy Ghost ? Does 
 not the supposed first chapter of St. Luke, verse 35, 
 say, that the Holy Ghost should come upon her, and 
 the power of the Highest overshadow her ? And are 
 not these something like attempts to shew how it was, 
 that the infant became incarnate of something more 
 than man ? though they do not, such as they are, shew 
 that he became incarnate of the supposed Divine 
 Logos, the second person in the Trinity, according to 
 the commonly received hypothesis, but rather the con- 
 trary. It is true, however, that these accounts say 
 but little upon the subject, and certainly the less the 
 better, for from the third or fourth century down- 
 wards, even to the present times, learned men have 
 toiled most piteously, but most unsuccessfully, to ac- 
 complish it, having entangled themselves in number- 
 less contradictions and absurdities to no purpose.
 
 tiori, that any ends of discipline, for which it is sup- 
 posed to have taken place, are there assigned ; and you 
 have proved neither Your demand to have them ad- 
 mitted, is like that of the %og vov area of Archimedes, 
 or, in plain English, Give me a place to stand upon, 
 which, in my humble opinion, you will never obtain. 
 
 It is highly deserving of remark too, whilst consi- 
 dering Johnvii. 16, that our Lord, when he excludes 
 himself, by saying that his doctrine is not his, excludes 
 also the Holy Ghost, by declaring that it is his who 
 sent him, which the Holy Ghost never did, nor is pre- 
 tended to h^ve done ; but the Father only. When 
 our Lord so expressly asserts, that his doctrine is not 
 his own, but his who sent him, is it not most extra- 
 ordinary that any rational being *vho gives him credit 
 for speaking the truth, should seriously maintain, that 
 it is his own doctrine, and also the doctrine of an- 
 other person called the Holy Ghost, as well as the 
 Father's, and that notwithstanding what he says, 
 though it is so clear and so plain, the Father was not 
 the sole author of it ? 
 
 Nothing can more strikingly exemplify the nature 
 of the proofs resorted to in support of these extraor- 
 dinary doctrines, which ought to be the strongest, 
 clearest, and most unexceptionable in every respect, 
 than your quoting such a text as Heb. ii. 16 : " For 
 verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but 
 took on him the seed of Abraham," to prove that St. 
 Paul was acquainted with the doctrine of the incar-
 
 nation, and was adverting to it in that text. I can 
 only account for it by your having been totally misled 
 by the common version ; for whoever looks into the 
 Greek will perceive immediately, that a more unsa- 
 tisfactory and inauspicious passage for this purpose 
 could not have been selected ; as in the first place the 
 word nature is not to be found in it, but owes its in- 
 troduction into the English version solely to the ima- 
 gination of the translator, who, however, to do him 
 justice, has put it, together with the word him, in two 
 places, and the word the, which he has also inserted, 
 because he could not, without them, after introducing 
 the word nature, make sense of the passage, in Italics: 
 and secondly, the word gT/Xa^Savsra/ has many signi- 
 fications, and it is by no means certain which is the 
 right, but that in the common version makes no sense 
 at all without inserting additional words. I shall pre- 
 sent you with the version of a very recent, if not one 
 of the most recent, Trinitarian writers upon the sub- 
 ject of it, which is, " For truly it is not the Angels 
 whom he succoureth, but he succoureth the posterity 
 of Abraham." It might have been, "For truly he 
 succoureth not Angels, but succoureth the seed of 
 Abraham," and then it would have been literal, and 
 have made perfectly good sense, without any addi- 
 tion. The translation of Archbishop Newcome is like 
 it, namely, " For indeed Christ helpeth not Angels, 
 but he helpeth the seed of Abraham." These versions, 
 and the second is a literal one, which the common
 
 349 
 
 version is not, destroy every vestige of an allusion to 
 the incarnation or even pre-existence of our Lord, 
 and it follows easily and naturally the preceding verse, 
 which having stated, " that he was to deliver them 
 who through fear of death were all their life-time sub- 
 ject to bondage," meaning his brethren the descend- 
 ants of Abraham, this verse says " for verily he suc- 
 coureth not angels, but succoureth the seed of Abra- 
 ham." 
 
 Nevertheless, as you mayi perhaps say, Though the 
 verse I have quoted for the purpose does not, when 
 strictly scrutinized, prove it, yet the very next, ver. 17, 
 does, and it has been often cited as evidence of it, I 
 shall examine that likewise; and supposing the ren- 
 dering of the common version to be correct, " Where- 
 fore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto 
 his brethren," it would not follow, as has been sup- 
 posed by many Trinitarians, that he had previously 
 existed in another state, and was then made like his 
 brethren ; for if it did, the seventh verse of the same 
 chapter speaking of man in general, and saying, "Thou 
 madest him a little lower than the Angels, thou 
 crownedst him with glory and honour," would equally 
 prove, that every man had pre-existed, and had from 
 some previous state, whatever it was, been made a 
 little lower than the angels. But as the latter does 
 not prove our own pre-existence, so neither can the 
 former prove the pre-existence of Christ. If it be- 
 hoved him in all things to be made like unto his
 
 350 
 
 brethren, and they were made men, it follows that 
 Christ was made a man as they were ; but it does not 
 follow, that either the one or the other pre-existed, of 
 which there is not the most distant intimation. It 
 was the design of the writer of the epistle, in the 7th 
 and 9th verses, to shew that they were all made, and 
 that all of them, that is, Christ and his brethren, 
 were made men. Nothing can be more plain. The 
 distinction throughout, if we will but open our eyes 
 to see it, is between Christ and the angels, and be- 
 tween the human race at large, particularly the brethren 
 of Christ, that is the seed of Abraham, and the angels, 
 in conformity to which, we are told, ver. 7, that man 
 was made a little lower than the angels, and ver. 9, 
 that Christ was made a little lower than the angels ; 
 and the object of the author of the epistle afterwards 
 is, to inform us why Christ was made a man, and not 
 an angel, who was also made as well as he, namely, 
 ver. 9, that he, Christ, by the favour of God might 
 taste death for every man, which he could not have 
 done if he had been made an angel, the angels being 
 considered to have been made immortal, and conse- 
 quently incapable of death : also, ver. 10, that he 
 might be made perfect through sufferings; and verses 
 14, 15, that through death he might destroy him 
 who had the power of death, and deliver them who 
 through the fear of death were all their life-time sub- 
 ject to bondage, that is, other men: also, ver. 16, that 
 he succoureth not angels, and for a very good reason.
 
 351 
 
 because, being immortal, they do not require his as* 
 sistance in this respect ; but that he succoureth the 
 seed of Abraham, and for a reason equally good, 
 namely, that being liable to death, and through the 
 fear of it all their life-time subject to bondage, they 
 stood in the utmost need of such assistance, for which 
 reason it is said, ver. 17, that in all things it behoved 
 him to be made like unto them, that he might be a 
 merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining 
 to God^ to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
 people, for that, in that he himself hath suffered, being 
 tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. 
 The second chapter of the Hebrews, therefore, 
 when properly explained, not only supplies no evi- 
 dence either of the incarnation, or of the pre-existence 
 of our Lord, but is adverse to both, as it shews that 
 he was made a little lower than the angels, as every 
 one else is, and that in all things it behoved him to 
 be made, or to be, like unto his brethren, that is other 
 men of his own nation, ver. 17, which he could not 
 have been, if he had been a compound being, having 
 two natures, the one divine, and the other human, 
 which no other man ever had, "that he might be" 
 for so the word ywqrui is translated here, though the 
 same verb is rendered made in some parts of the first 
 chapter of St. John, "a merciful and faithful high 
 priest." Hence it appears, that, all these texts are 
 perfectly consistent with each other, and all unite in 
 proving, that Jesus Christ was a man and nothing 
 
 2 A
 
 352 
 
 more. The seventh verse of the second chapter of the 
 Hebrews representing, that man was made alittle lower 
 than the Angels, the ninth verse that Jesus was made 
 a little lower than the angels, (as other men are,) the 
 17th verse, that in all things it behoved him to be 
 made, or to be, like his brethren, that is, to be, or to 
 be made, a man, as other men were. This is one case 
 out of many, in which we perceive the advantage of 
 making the Scriptures their own interpreters. 
 
 The same word made is likewise in the common 
 version, particularly in the first chapter of St. John, 
 sometimes given as the rendering of the word gyswro ; 
 but if this were the only proper meaning of the word, 
 where this translation of it is adopted, how obvious is 
 the remark, that as Jesus is said to have been made 
 a little lower than the angels, in the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, as other men are, so the same Jesus, who 
 is figuratively called the word, probably because he 
 was commissioned to declare, and did declare, the 
 word of God to mankind more fully than any of the 
 former messengers of the Most High, (see p. 30 
 32) may have been said in the Gospel of St. John to 
 have been made flesh, as other men are. It should, 
 nevertheless, be remembered, that the word tywro at 
 least does not require any such meaning, but might, 
 and as I contend ought, to have been translated was, 
 as the very same word is translated by the very same 
 translators in this 2nd chapter of the Hebrews, ver. 2, 
 and as the word y&qrau, which is another tense of the
 
 353 
 
 same verb, is in the same chapter, verse 17, properly 
 rendered might be. 
 
 Whoever wishes to see another instance of the same 
 word sysvzro, translated by the same translators was^ 
 in the very same chapter of St. John, has nothing to 
 do but to turn to the sixth verse; and if he wishes to 
 pursue the inquiry a little further, I will refer him to 
 Luke i. 5, which, though in my judgement spurious, 
 is still a very ancient writing; and to 1 Cor. ii. 3. 
 where the word sysvopjy, from the same verb y/vopa/, 
 is thus translated by the same persons, and also to 
 the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which 
 was in extensive use in the time of the Apostles, and 
 long before, where he will find, Judges xvii. 1. xix. 1. 
 and 2nd Samuel, there called 2 Kings, ii. 18, the very 
 same word sysvgro, used in the same sense oiivas, and 
 in the 17th verse the word sywovro used in the sense 
 of were, which are the words actually made use of by 
 our translators in the common version from the He- 
 brew in those texts. 
 
 You seem to have fallen into a strange puzzle, not 
 only by taking it for granted, from an erroneous trans- 
 lation of the 16th verse of the second chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, that St. Paul adverts to the 
 Incarnation, but by quoting him from memory, and 
 doing it inaccurately, putting the words, " he is not 
 ashamed to call them brethren" in the 1 1th verse after 
 the erroneous interpretation of the 16th verse, which 
 you have also transposed, inserting also the words, "I 
 
 2 A 2
 
 354 
 
 will put my trust in him" in the 13th verse after the 
 whole; by which you have, though no doubt inadver- 
 tently, entirely misrepresented his meaning; for who- 
 ever reads the passage, as it stands in the original, 
 will see, that it is because both he that sanctifieth, 
 that is Christ, and they that are sanctified, that is his 
 disciples, are all of one, that is of God, he, Christ, is 
 not ashamed to call them brethren, though, as had 
 been just before mentioned, he had been made the 
 captain of their salvation, that is, had been advanced 
 to a station of great pre-eminence over them in the 
 work of their salvation, having been made their chief, 
 or captain, in this great work. 
 
 How you can consider your remarks founded upon 
 these misquotations, and upon the supposition, that 
 IF the incarnation for the ends of discipline, which is 
 all imaginary, be admitted, our Lord must have been 
 placed in the subordinate and dependent state you 
 have mentioned, to be a sufficient reply to mine, on 
 the angel strengthening him, I cannot conceive, nor 
 what colour there can be, for requiring me to admit, 
 that the Almighty God who created all things, and 
 fills the universe with his presence, was incarnate in a 
 man, with all his glorious energies and attributes 
 suspended, and doing nothing, during the third part 
 of a century. No rational being could be expected 
 to credit this, without the most clear and express re- 
 velation. But where are we to look for any revela- 
 tion of such a monstrous proposition ? It is sufficient
 
 355 
 
 for me to deny the fact, and to call for the proof of it. 
 If any system maker, in the folly of human invention, 
 had pretended that the Father was incarnate, he might 
 have done it with rather greater plausibility, inas- 
 much as he might have quoted our Lord's own words, 
 "The Father who dwelleth In ?ne, he doth the works;" 
 but what colour is there for supposing, that another 
 infinite and almighty person, of whom our Lord says 
 nothing at all, was incarnate, and consequently dwelt 
 in him likewise ? There is no end, however, to such 
 speculations. I can account for the angel strength- 
 ening our Lord, according to the plain and simple 
 narrative cf the fact, as delivered in the Scriptures, 
 unconnected with any system, without the least diffi- 
 culty, and certainly without supposing that one, who, 
 to use your own language, was infinite, eternal, and 
 SUPREME, was placed in a subordinate and depen- 
 dent state, with all his stupendous powers inactive, 
 and unexercised, for upwards of three and thirty years. 
 
 Our Lord himself, as I have remarked already, 
 makes the supposition of his being desirous of deli- 
 vering himself from the state of danger and difficulty 
 in which he was placed; but how does he say that he 
 could have accomplished it, had such been his wish ? 
 By exercising the powers of a supposed second na- 
 ture, which lay dormant in him ? No such things 
 but simply by praying to the Father for his, the FA- 
 THER'S assistance. 
 
 You tell me that I observe prayer is never offered
 
 356 
 
 to Christ ; in reply to which you statr, " that the 
 Scriptures say that Stephen the proto-martyr died of- 
 fering the most solemn prayer to him to receive his 
 soul, and that nothing appears to you more futile, 
 than the answer given by some, that Stephen then 
 saw Christ; for if it were right for Stephen to die ask- 
 ing Christ to receive his soul, you cannot see what 
 difference it could make whether he saw his Lord 
 with the eye of the body or the mind." 
 
 The answer is obvious. When we see a person 
 with the eye of the body, and make our requests to 
 him as visibly present, it does not follow, that we con- 
 sider him to be possessed of ubiquity, omniscience, 
 or any other attribute of Deity : but when with the 
 eye of the mind we contemplate an invisible Being, 
 and make our requests to him, we thereby ascribe to 
 him omnipresence and omniscience, and the requests 
 so made to such a Being, under such circumstances, 
 are strictly and properly prayers. 
 
 Let us see now what the case of Stephen was. It 
 appears that when he had closed his defence before 
 the council, his enemies being violently enraged, and 
 gnashing upon him with their teeth, he looked up 
 into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus 
 standing on the right hand of God, which having de- 
 clared to them, they ran upon him and cast him out 
 of the city, and stoned him, invoking, (not calling 
 upon God, as inserted in Italics in the common version, 
 there being no such word as God in the original,) and
 
 saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, when kneeling 
 down, and crying with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this 
 sin to their charge, he expired. Now it is not stated 
 when the heavenly vision, during which our Lord ap- 
 peared in his sight, was withdrawn. The probability is, 
 that as it first appeared to encourage him when his ene- 
 mies were upon the point of laying violent hands 
 upon him, it continued for the same purpose, during 
 the short period of outrage which terminated his ex- 
 istence ; and his calling upon Jesus, whom we are 
 told he had just before seen, would upon any other 
 occasion be considered evidence that he still continued 
 to see him ; in which case his requesting him, who 
 had assured all his disciples that he would raise them 
 up at the last day, to receive his spirit, or dying 
 breath, and desiring him who had declared that he 
 had on earth power to forgive sins, not to lay the sin 
 of his persecutors to their charge, are quite different 
 from prayers offered, when there is no personal pre- 
 sence, to God, who, though invisible, is omnipresent 
 and omniscient. 
 
 In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in the 
 1 6th chapter of St. Luke, when Abraham on the death 
 of Lazarus had received him into his bosom, and the 
 rich man after his death, being in torment in hell, 
 lift up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus 
 in his bosom, and cried and said, Father Abraham, 
 have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may 
 dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue,
 
 358 
 
 for I am tormented in this flame, - such a petition, 
 if it had been addressed to Christ under such circum- 
 stances, would, upon your principles, have been con- 
 sidered a prayer, and a complete proof that he was 
 Qod. In a subsequent verse he continues, \pray thee 
 therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my 
 father's house. These, however, were mere requests, 
 like those of Stephen, to one personally and visibly 
 present, and not prayers, strictly speaking, in the 
 sense we give to the word, when we apply it to the pe- 
 titions we offer up to the infinite and invisible God. 
 It is observable likewise, that God and Christ are as 
 much distinguished from each other, as Abraham and 
 Lazarus, and there is as much reason for concluding, 
 that St. Luke in the Acts did not consider Christ, 
 who could not stand on his own right hand, to be God, 
 as there is for thinking that he did not in his Gospel 
 consider Lazarus, who could not be in his own bosom, 
 to be Abraham. 
 
 St. Paul also, who was favoured with personal and 
 visible appearances of our Lord still more than Ste- 
 phen, when speaking of the thorn in the flesh, which 
 had been given to him, lest he should be exalted above 
 measure by the abundance of the revelations made 
 to him, says 2 Cor. xii. 8. that he besought the Lord 
 thrice, that it might depart from him, which may 
 likewise be considered as requests made by Paul to 
 Christ when personally and visiblypresent; which mode 
 of explanation, both as it respects Stephen and Paul,
 
 359 
 
 corresponds with the accompanying circumstances, 
 and with the uniform practice of every one of the 
 Apostles; whilst that of the Trinitarians is at variance 
 with them all, is at variance with the express injunc- 
 tion of our Lord, that when we pray, we should pray 
 to the Father ; and has no commandment whatever 
 in any part of Scripture to give it sanction, or make 
 it binding upon us, which it would unquestionably 
 have had, if it had been necessary or proper. Let the 
 candid and unbiassed Christian therefore determine, 
 which construction is most likely to be the true one. 
 Continuing this subject, you state, " that Ananias 
 observed to Christ, Acts ix. 14. that Paul came to 
 Damascus to bind all that called on the name of Je- 
 sus, which you say was the Hebrew phrase for wor- 
 ship, and that Paul afterwards addressed the Corin- 
 thians by the title of those who called on the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. i. 2." These texts however I 
 cannot receive as proofs, happening to know, that the 
 verb ivizateiffdui has a passive, as well as an active 
 signification, and therefore that trcivrctg rovg vTrtKukov- 
 pwovg TO owutu <rov may be rendered, all that are called 
 by thy name. In this sense Mr. Locke understood 
 the passage 1 Cor. i. *2. and considered it a periphrasis 
 for Christians, which is plainly the design of the verse. 
 That this verb is used in the passive sense, signifying 
 cognominari, see also Matt. x. 3, Luke xxii. 3, Acts i. 
 23. 4. 36, Isa. iv. 1. It has likewise a middle, or reci- 
 procal sense. Accordingly Mr. Wakefield translates
 
 " all that take upon themselves the name of the Lord 
 Jesus," and the Arabic version gives us " all who call 
 themselves by thy name," which in substance is very 
 similar. It sometimes also is used as a periphrasis for 
 being truly religious. Deut. xxviii. 10, Jam. ii. 7. 
 Finally, it has by some been observed, that SKI may be 
 translated in. Thus in Matt. xxiv. 5. voTJ^i ycx,o t\w- 
 ffovrat &KI ro ovopart pou, for many shall come in my 
 name, and Acts iv. 18. This would give, " all who call 
 or pray, in thy na??ie" as our Lord himself had com- 
 manded his disciples to do, when he should be taken 
 from them. The texts in question therefore are no 
 authority at all for your position. 
 
 Your next remark is, " that the Apostolic benedic- 
 tion," meaning I suppose 2 Cor. xiii. 14, " The grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and 
 the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with YOU all, 
 is nothing but a prayer to the Father, Son and Spi- 
 rit ;" whilst in the same breath you say, " It does not 
 however comport with the office which the Holy Spirit 
 holds, to be addressed in prayer as the Son ; nor with 
 that of the Son to be addressed as frequent/?/ as the 
 Father." You cite no authority, and assign no rea- 
 son, for either of these assertions ; but lay them down 
 ex cathedra, as axioms not to be controverted, not 
 appearing to be aware, that you are imputing to the 
 Apostle the doing of that to the Holy Spirit, which it 
 does not comport with the office of the Holy Spirit to 
 have done to it I will venture to affirm, however,
 
 361 
 
 that we have only to read the Apostolical benediction, 
 to be satisfied, that it is no prayer to the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit, nor any prayer at all to any one ; but 
 only a pious WISH, on the part of the Apostle, that 
 the Corinthians might enjoy the favour of Christ, the 
 love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. 
 It is not addressed to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 or to any of them, but to the Corinthians, and to them 
 only ; which is decisive. 
 
 Nor do I agree with yon, that if the Holy Spirit 
 were a person, equal to the Father, and of course om- 
 nipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it would not 
 comport with his office to be prayed to in his depart- 
 ment, as well as the Father and Son in theirs. On 
 the contrary, no reason can be assigned why he should 
 not be addressed in prayer, to comfort and sanctify, 
 as well as the Father to preserve, and the Son to save 
 us. Though you state that it does not comport with 
 the Son's office to be prayed to as often as the Fa- 
 ther, you have supplied no means of ascertaining how 
 often it should be ; but in the absence of all precept, 
 we should endeavour to discover what examples there 
 are for our direction and government in this respect. 
 To me it appears, that there are none at all. You 
 conceive that there are; but taking those you mention 
 to be such, it would only be when he was personally 
 and visibly present. We should consequently have a 
 Trinity of three personal distinctions, the first of whom 
 is to be prayed to without limitation or restriction, the
 
 36"2 
 
 second only when he is personally and visibly present, 
 and the third not at all. 
 
 Whatever I may think of this state of things, I 
 should rejoice exceedingly, if our prayers were mo- 
 delled in conformity to it, for we should then, accord- 
 ing to our Lord's commandment, when we pray, pray 
 to the Father, and to the Father only, and we Unita- 
 rians should be able to unite with you in our prayers, 
 with much more satisfaction than we now can, when 
 we are obliged to be constantly upon our guard, to 
 omit what we consider to be unscriptural and unlaw- 
 ful. 
 
 You inform me, " that the Saviour shews an an- 
 xiety to prove the personality of the Holy Spirit, by in- 
 troducing the personal pronoun exwos, to shew that 
 by the ro Tutvpa he did not mean a thing, when he 
 promises that the comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, 
 whom the Father would send in Christ's name (John 
 xiv. 26.) when he came would lead them into all 
 truth, and he would not speak of himself; but what 
 he should hear, that he would speak, John xvi. 13. 
 and that no sense can be made of that whole pas- 
 sage, and the formula of baptism, and the Apostolic 
 benediction, with several other passages, but upon 
 Trinitarian principles." 
 
 Had our Lord been anxious to prove the personality 
 of the Holy Spirit, as you suppose, he might have ef- 
 fected it clearly and decidedly, by saying at once, that 
 the Holy Spirit was a person, instead of leaving it to
 
 363 
 
 be made out by inference, from putting the masculine 
 pronoun sxzivo; into one scale, to balance the neutral 
 article ro in the other. Is this the way that doctrines 
 are taught upon which men's salvation is made to de- 
 pend ? Can any one believe, that if a doctrine so im- 
 portant, as that of the Holy Spirit being a person, and 
 a person equal to the Father, and equally to be wor- 
 shipped and glorified, had been true, the whole would 
 not have been clearly and specifically revealed in di- 
 rect terms, and not left to be collected by mere infe- 
 rence and deduction ; and that we should never have 
 been commanded, either to pray to, worship, or glo- 
 rify him ? Does not the absence of all this, the want 
 of all example and authority, from the beginning of 
 Genesis, to the end of the Revelations, impress the 
 mind with irresistible conviction, and prove decisively, 
 that you are mistaken in all your inferences, and have 
 not yet attained the true meaning of the passage? 
 
 Whoever considers the bold figurative style of the 
 Scripture writers, and their frequent personifications, 
 will be at no loss for the reason why the word ezswos is 
 here introduced. The Apostle John abounds in perso- 
 nifications, as well as the other Scripture writers, and 
 when we find, not only wisdom, -instruction, and cha- 
 rity, but the name of God, the BREATH of God, and 
 almost all his attributes, personified, why should we 
 wonder, that his spirit is personified also, whether it 
 be used to signify himself, or his divine power and 
 influence, displayed in the performance of miracles?
 
 304 
 
 But let us see what the Spirit really was, and what 
 account is given of it when sent, according to our 
 Lord's prediction in the passage you have cited. We 
 shall find a very particular account of it in the second 
 Chapter of the Acts, where it is said, that the disci- 
 ples were filled with it, and began to speak with other 
 tongues, that is, to speak miraculously languages they 
 had never learned, as the spirit, ro msvpa, with the 
 neuter article, without the masculine pronoun, gave 
 them utterance; and the Apostle Peter, in his first ser- 
 mon, gives this account of it, verses 16, 17, 38: " But 
 this is TO, that thing," for the Apostle here does not 
 use any personification, but speaks in plain terms, 
 " which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, and it shall 
 come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour 
 out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and 
 your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men 
 shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams ;" 
 and having afterwards stated, verse 32, that God had 
 raised up Christ, who had received of the Father the 
 promise of the Holy Spirit, adds, " he hath shed forth, 
 rovroy this THING, o which ye now see and hear," and 
 further informs his audience, verse 38, that if they re- 
 pented and were baptized, they should every one of 
 them receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The de- 
 scription thus given of the Holy Spirit, as something 
 poured out upon all flesh, as shed forth, and as a gift, 
 though it would be ridiculous as applied to a person, 
 who cannot be conceived of as poured out, or shed
 
 365 
 
 forth, or made a present of to multitudes at the same 
 time, was suitable, and appropriate, in application to 
 miraculous powers or influences, which the Apostle's 
 own words shew, was all that he had an idea of upon 
 the occasion ; which powers and influences he repre- 
 sents as having been communicated, not by a sup- 
 posed Holy Spirit, but by Christ himself, and to have 
 been themselves the Holy Spirit, which Christ had re- 
 ceived the promise of from his Father ; nor does he 
 say one syllable throughout his discourse, of a PERSON 
 called the Holy Spirit, though expressly treating upon 
 the subject. What reason can be assigned for this 
 omission ? Let any Trinitarian put himself in the 
 Apostle's place, and say, whether when teaching the 
 great doctrines of Christianity in the first Christian 
 sermon ever preached, and giving an account, both of 
 the Son and the Spirit, he could Jiave omitted the 
 most important of them all, and have spoken of the 
 former only as a man, and of the latter merely as 
 something poured out, shed forth, and given. No 
 Unitarian could have made a more completely Uni- 
 tarian discourse. 
 
 The same Apostle afterwards tells us, Acts x. 38, 
 " that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
 Spirit," but shews plainly what he meant by the Holy 
 Spirit, by adding, " and with power," using the latter 
 word, it would appear, synonymously, and shewing what 
 our Lord did, in consequence of being so anointed,
 
 366 
 
 namely, that he went about doing good, and healing 
 all who were oppressed of the devil, that is, working 
 miracles, and why ? Let St. Luke himself answer the 
 question, because o Qzog, that is the Father, was with 
 him ; not because the Divine Logos, the supposed se- 
 cond person in the Trinity, was with him, or consti- 
 tuted a part of him ; not because an imaginary per- 
 son called God the Holy Ghost was with him, and as- 
 sisted him ; but because 6 Qeoc, that is the Father, was 
 with him. How incongruous, not to say ridiculous, 
 would the whole of this passage be, upon the suppo- 
 sition of the Holy Spirit being a PERSON ! What 
 Trinitarian even would not be shocked, if told in plain 
 terms, that God the Father anointed God the Son 
 with God the Holy Spirit ? Would it not be just as 
 absurd as to say, that the Apostle Peter anointed the 
 Apostle Paul with the Apostle John ? 
 
 We have a singular instance of the figurative use 
 of this word in the Old Testament, 2 Kings ii. 9, be- 
 fore alluded to, where Elisha prayed Elijah, that a dou- 
 ble portion of his, Elijah's, spirit might be upon him, 
 which Elijah promised, if he was with him when he 
 was taken away; and this having happened, and Elisha 
 having in consequence wrought a signal miracle, by 
 dividing the waters of Jordan, the sons of the pro- 
 phets who beheld it said, verse 15, that the spirit of 
 Elijah rested on Elisha ; but does any one believe, 
 that the spirit of Elijah was a PERSON, or any thing
 
 367 
 
 else than the miraculous POWER, which had been be- 
 stowed upon Elijah, and which, on his being taken up 
 into Heaven, was communicated to Elisha ? 
 
 The Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are repre- 
 sented as dwelling in persons, 1 Cor. iii. .16. 2 Tim. i. 
 14 ; and so, in language similarly figurative, are Faith, 
 2 Tim. i. 5. the word of Christ, Col. iii. 16. and Sin, 
 Rom. vii. 17. 20. Sometimes also the Spirit is said 
 to be given by measure, and sometimes without mea- 
 sure, both of which are totally inapplicable to a per- 
 son. 
 
 The Scripture writers also frequently use the term 
 Spirit of a person, to denote the person himself. Thus 
 1 Cor. xvi. 18. " They have refreshed my spirit and 
 yours," that is, me and you. " The grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit :" that is, with 
 you, Gal. vi. 18. So the Spirit of God is explained 
 to mean the same thing as to God, that the spirit of 
 a man does as to a man, 1 Cor. ii. 11. " For what 
 man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
 man which is in him ? Even so the things of God 
 knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God." 
 
 But our Lord's prediction having been, that the 
 Spirit, when sent, would lead the disciples into all 
 truth, let us inquire, what truth it led them into the 
 knowledge of, when it came. Was it that the Spirit 
 itself was a person in the Godhead distinct from, but 
 equal to, the Father and the Son, and together with 
 them to be praised, worshipped, and glorified, as the 
 
 2 B
 
 368 
 
 Trinitarians affirm ? If it were, they ought to be able 
 to tell us, without difficulty, where this surprising re- 
 velation stands recorded. If we search the whole book 
 of Acts ; if we examine every one of the Apostolical 
 epistles ; if we read through the Apocalypse from the 
 beginning to the end, we shall not meet with a single 
 passage, where any thing of this nature appears to 
 have been communicated to any person : we shall not 
 find a single precept, to pray to, praise, or glorify, the 
 Spirit, or a single instance, of any one having ever 
 done so. If then the Spirit, which was to lead them 
 into all truth, did not lead them into the knowledge 
 of this, it follows as demonstrably as that two and 
 two make four, that it is not the truth, and ought not 
 to be received as such by Christians. 
 
 Why should we not be able to make sense of the 
 passage in question, in St. John's gospel, without un- 
 derstanding the Spirit to be a real person, as well as 
 of the passage, in Proverbs viii. 1 4. without under- 
 standing wisdom to be a real person, where it is per- 
 sonified in like manner, and thus spoken of in the 
 feminine gender, as if it were a real female ; " Doth 
 not wisdom cry, and understanding put forth her 
 voice ? She standeth on the top of high places, by 
 the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the 
 gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the 
 doors. Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to 
 the sons of man." In both cases we consider the 
 language to be figurative, and, by the assistance of a
 
 369 
 
 little common sense, understand both, without any 
 difficulty. Upon the same principle we discover how 
 the Spirit is said to be poured out, shed forth, be- 
 stowed as a gift ; how persons can be said to be filled 
 with it, anointed with it, baptized with it, and the like. 
 There is no reason whatever for our adopting a con- 
 struction, which is not sanctioned by any of the plain 
 and express declarations of Scripture, which has occa- 
 sioned the setting up an imaginary j^rao??, and in- 
 vesting him with the attributes of the Supreme Being, 
 and ha's unhappily ended in our praying to, worship- 
 ping, and glorifying him, the whole of which is utterly 
 irreconcileable, both with the precepts, and the prac- 
 tice, of every one of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evan- 
 gelists, and of our Lord himself, the greatest autho- 
 rity of all. 
 
 The formula of baptism, and the Apostolic bene- 
 diction, I have considered already, neither of which 
 requires or countenances any such monstrous doc- 
 trine. 
 
 My argument against the divinity of Christ from 
 his words concerning the day of judgment, you say, 
 " you think inconclusive, though you agree that I 
 shew the impropriety of the rendering, commissiojied 
 to make known ; still however you observe it is ma- 
 nifest, that the Apostles wrote Greek with the ideas 
 of men to whom Hebrew was more natural, and that 
 the Hebrew word ' to know,' in the Hyphil, signifies ' to 
 make known,' in the sense the Apostle uses it when 
 
 2n2
 
 370 
 
 he says, I am determined to know nothing among you, 
 save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (I Cor. ii. 2.). 
 And now unto the Principalities and Powers in hea- 
 venly places is known by the church the manifold 
 wisdom of God, that is, made kno'vn (Ephes. iii. 10.) 
 that you consider that our Lord designs to say, that 
 no man makes known the day of judgment, nor does 
 any Angel, nor does the Son, which by the way you 
 say shews, that Christ distinguishes himself from men 
 and angels, but that the Father will announce that 
 day, either by revealing it by an audible voice from 
 Heaven, or by sending his son to judge the world, that 
 this best accords with the passage where the words oc- 
 cur, for that there was no reason why Christ should 
 speak of mere knowledge of the day of judgment, 
 though there was great reason to suppose that the 
 Apostles, to whom Christ was speaking, were curious 
 to know, and in hope that Christ would inform them ; 
 to check which he said that none that had intercourse 
 with men, told that secret, and that after all it is not 
 certain that it refers to the day of judgment at all." 
 
 In this place, my friend, you furnish us, I dare say 
 without being conscious of it, with another specimen 
 of the singular practice adopted by many of the Tri- 
 nitarian writers, which they have used so long, that 
 they think they have a prescription for it, of interpret- 
 ing plain passages by obscure ones, instead of obscure 
 by plain ones. The two texts, Matt. xxiv. 36. Mark 
 xiii. 32, are both so clear, that they require no expla-
 
 371 
 
 nation. He that runs may read, and he that reads, 
 if left to himself, must and will immediately under- 
 stand them. There is no ambiguity whatever, nor 
 any difficulty, except that of creating a doubt about 
 their meaning ; but it is exceedingly doubtful, to say 
 the least, whether the word etbsvat, in the first of the 
 texts you quote, which, as well as 0/^2, and oibzv before 
 a vowel, is part of the Greek verb sibza, is to be un- 
 derstood in the sense of the corresponding Hebrew 
 word in the Hyphil, that is, to make known, or in the 
 plain obvious sense of the Greek word, meaning sim- 
 ply to know. In the first the Apostle, beginning at 
 the first verse, informs the Corinthians, that when he 
 came to them, he came not with excellency of speech 
 or of wisdom, declaring unto them the testimony of 
 God, for he determined not to know any thing among 
 them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Now what 
 were the Corinthians when the Apostle came to them, 
 but Idolaters and Jews? and is it to be supposed, that 
 he here meant to speak in thehyphil, and to tell them, 
 especially the former, who knew nothing about the 
 hyphii, that he determined to make nothing known to 
 them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified ; when he 
 had to teach the former, that there was but one God 
 the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth ; 
 and the latter, that the Gentiles were to be admitted 
 to a participation of all the privileges which they sup- 
 posed to be confined to their own nation, and that 
 both should alike be endued with miraculous powers?
 
 372 
 
 What reason can there he for fane;, ing that the same 
 writer has used the same verb four times in the com- 
 pass of a fe\v verses in different senses, and one of 
 them in a sense in which the greater part of his readers 
 would not have understood it, without any intimation, 
 or any necessity for it ? Whoever will cast his eyes 
 but a little lower down, will find in the 1 1th verse the 
 very word oibw used twice by the Apostle in the sense 
 of * knoweth,' and in the 12th verse the word zibuuuiv, in 
 the sense of * we might know.' What he determined not 
 to know any thing of, but only Jesus Christ, and him 
 crucified, was their oratory and worldly wisdom, and 
 senseless controversies, to which he had alluded but 
 just before. 
 
 The next passage you quote, Ephes. iii. 10, is fatal 
 to your own argument, as it demonstrates, that the 
 Apostle Paul, who was a Hebrew, and accustomed to 
 the Hyphil, if he designed to be understood in the 
 sense you imagine, knew better, when addressing, not 
 only Jews, but Gentiles also, who knew nothing of 
 the Hyphil, in the Greek language, which has no such 
 voice, than to employ the Greek verb tibtu, from which 
 comes oto&v, and which signifies only 'to know,' in the 
 sense of * making known,' a sense in which none of the 
 latter would have understood it. He therefore made 
 use of another word, namely, yiw&ia&ii from yvaoifyu, 
 one of the ordinary meanings of which is ' to make 
 known.' What right have we then to assume, that 
 St. Matthew or his translator, and St. Mark, particu-
 
 373 
 
 larly the latter, were so ignorant, or so negligent, as to 
 use the word otfov, quite a different word, conveying 
 a different meaning, in a sense in which the persons 
 for whose benefit they wrote in the Greek language, 
 would never understand it? Such a supposition, with- 
 out any evidence whatever to support it, looks as if 
 those who make it were driven to their last shifts. 
 
 If our Lord had spoken in the Hyphil, the Apostle 
 Matthew would have written in the Hyphil, and the 
 Greek translator, seeing the sign of the Hyphil, would 
 have translated the word by a Greek word giving a 
 corresponding meaning, and would never have used 
 the word o&zv, which does not correspond with the 
 Hebrew word in the Hyphil voice, but signifies ' to 
 know,'' and not ' to make known.' It is clear therefore, 
 that the Apostle did not write, nor our Lord speak, 
 in the Hyphil, and this is confirmed, if further proof 
 were requisite, by the corresponding passage, Mark 
 xiii. 32, already mentioned, where that Evangelist, 
 whose Gospel was originally written in Greek, used 
 the very same Greek word, furnishing another proof, 
 that our Lord was not in his, Mark's, time, and he 
 had much better means of knowing the fact, than we 
 have, who come so long after him, understood to have 
 spoken in the Hyphil, which after all is nothing more 
 than conjecture, the conjecture of a much later period, 
 made only to defend a mere human invention against 
 the plain words of Scripture, without a shadow of evi- 
 dence to support it.
 
 374 
 
 Let us now try your proposed version of 'making 
 known,' by the same test as Mr. Wardlaw's, that of 
 ' commissioned to make known,' was tried, and found 
 wanting (p. 72.), that is, by putting it into the text. 
 We shall then read as follows : * But that day no one 
 maketh known, no not the Angels who are in Heaven, 
 neither the Son, but my Father only/ which implies 
 that they all knew it ; for if they did not, how ridicu- 
 lous, not to say childish, would it be to affirm, that 
 neither A nor B nor C made known a thing which 
 we are quite sure they knew nothing at all about! On 
 the other hand, if they knew it, there was no occasion 
 for its being further made known ; whilst upon either 
 supposition, the latter part of the clause, according 
 to this strange interpretation, affirms that the Father 
 does make it known, and consequently that it is no 
 secret. 
 
 The obvious conclusion, from the assertion, that 
 neither A nor B nor C makes a thing known, is, that 
 they all know it, but do not choose to disclose it. Who 
 can for an instant imagine this to be the Apostle's 
 meaning, who only casts his eye over the words he 
 has made use of ? Why should we fancy his words 
 and his meaning to be in direct opposition to each 
 other, as we must upon this supposition ? I differ 
 from you entirely in your opinion that there was no 
 reason for our Lord to speak of mere knowledge. On 
 the contrary, it appears to me, that if the Apostles 
 were curious to know that great day, and were in hopes
 
 375 
 
 that be would inform them, the greatest and mostf- 
 fectual check he could give them, would be to te 
 them plainly at once, that no one knew it but the Fa- 
 ther only, not even he himself, which is exactly what 
 he has done ; for then they would immediately perceive, 
 that all further inquiry must be fruitless : but if we 
 suppose with you, that he only said that men did not 
 make it known, that Angels did not make it known, 
 that he himself did not make it known, but that his 
 Father only made it known, it might put them upon 
 inquiring what men knew it, or what Angels knew it, 
 or induce them to ask him again at another time, in 
 hopes that what he did not make known to them at 
 one time, he might at another. 
 
 Finally, let me entreat you to tell me what motive 
 we can have, for departing from the plain and ordi- 
 nary construction of the word the two evangelists have 
 given us, which not only presents us with a clear and 
 consistent sense, but also with a noble climax in every 
 way suitable to the sublimity, and solemnity, of the 
 subject but of that day, and that hour, knoweth no 
 one, no not the Angels which are in Heaven, neither 
 the Son, but my Father only, when the adoption of 
 another will not only destroy the magnificence of the 
 passage, but encumber us with unnecessary difficulties 
 and perplexities. 
 
 In reply to your observation, that Christ distin- 
 guishes himself from men, I shall merely remark, that 
 you have been misled once more by the common ver-
 
 3/5 
 
 <sion ; for if yu had consulted the original, you would 
 have found in both texts, forMatth. xxiv. 36. is not, 
 as Mr. Wardlavv imagines, a solitary text, but is con- 
 firmed by Mark xiii. 3*2. that the word made use of is 
 ovlug, no one, which gives a very intelligible and beau- 
 tiful meaning, without any such distinction as you 
 have supposed, being in Matt. " but of that day, and 
 that hour, knoweth no one, no not the Angels of Hea- 
 ven, but my Father only :" and in Mark, " but of 
 that day, and that hour, knoweth no one, no not the 
 Angels who are in Heaven, no not the Son, but the 
 Father." 
 
 Whether these words refer with certainty to the day 
 of judgment, or not, does not in the least affect my ar- 
 gument; for they certainly do refer to some great event, 
 the time of the accomplishment of which, whatever it 
 may be, was not known to any one, except the Father, 
 no not to the heavenly ministers called Angels, nor 
 even to the Son, but to the Father only. 
 
 Against these texts, my friend, the whole panoply 
 of Trinitarian warfare will not avail you. Like solid 
 rocks, unshaken by all the waves of theological con- 
 troversy, they still bear, as they always have, and ever 
 will, their invincible testimony to the sole omni- 
 science of the Father, and consequently prove, upon 
 the authority of Christ himself, that Christ is not God. 
 
 You proceed to &ay ; " As to the hypothesis of a 
 MERE creature being qualified to judge the world, it 
 is utterly contrary to the Scriptures, which declare that
 
 377 
 
 God is judge himself; Ps. 1. 6; and thus when Paul 
 says, " We must all appear before the judgment seat of 
 Christ, (Rom. xiv. 10, 12,) he proves it by quoting 
 the words in which Jehovah swears that every knee, 
 should bow to him, (Is. xlv. '23,) and concludes by 
 saying, So then every one of us must give account of 
 himself to God." 
 
 This alludes, I believe, to the following passage in 
 my second Letter, (p. 84,) " Shall we say then, as we 
 are invited to do by this writer, that the Almighty, 
 omniscient, and infinite author of all, cannot qualify 
 a finite being, one of the human race, in an exalted 
 and glorified state, and endued with enlarged faculties, 
 and powers, to judge a finite, and inconceivably small 
 part of the inhabitants of this diminutive speck, which 
 is in itself an inconceivably small proportion of his 
 immense dominions ?" Now what is there in this, 
 which is utterly contrary to any part of Scripture ? 
 What is there that militates against any one of the 
 texts you have quoted ? Nothing whatever. Where 
 is it said in Scripture, either that God has appointed 
 any one to this high office who is not qualified for it, 
 and whom he neither will, nor can, qualify to perform 
 its duties, or that Jesus Christ when he was appointed 
 to it, when God committed all judgment to him, 
 John v. 22, was so perfect, so wise, or so powerful, 
 as not to require any qualification, instruction, or as- 
 sistance, to enable him to fulfil its duties ? Did it not 
 behove him to be in all things like unto his brethren ?
 
 378 
 
 Heb. ii. 17. Was it not necessary for him, even after 
 this declaration that all judgment had been committed 
 unto him, to learn, that is, to learn obedience, by the 
 things which he suffered ? Heb. v. 8. Does not this 
 imply, that he was capable of disobedience, and that 
 if he had not learned obedience by suffering, he might 
 have been disobedient to his heavenly Father, as other 
 men are, and that one end of his sufferings was to 
 teach him obedience ? Was it not necessary that he 
 should after this be made perfect, which necessarily 
 implies that he was not so before, through sufferings ? 
 Heb. ii. 10. Was he sufficiently powerful, after this, 
 to perform any one mighty work by his own power or 
 authority ? Does he not declare, after this, that of 
 himself he could do nothing ? John v. 30 ; that it 
 was his FATHER, who dwelt in him, that did the works? 
 John xiv. 10. Does he not after this declare, that his 
 doctrine, and his words, were not his own, but his 
 that sent him ; and is he to act by his own power, or 
 authority, in the future state ? On the contrary, will 
 it not be the same Almighty Father, who will in the 
 next world, as he did in this, dwell in him, and do the 
 works, in short, put all things under him ? 1 Cor. xv. 
 27. How then can it be asserted to be utterly con- 
 trary to Scripture, to affirm, that God can qualify one 
 of the human race for the important office of univer- 
 sal judge at the end of the world ? On the other hand, 
 is it not perfectly conformable to the Scriptures, and 
 do they not expressly declare, that God has appointed
 
 379 
 
 one of our race in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 " the man whom he hath ordained," to that high of- 
 fice, and that he can and will qualify, and has been 
 qualifying him for it, teaching him, John viii. 28, in- 
 structing him, revealing his will, his doctrines, and 
 his words to him, from the beginning of his ministry? 
 
 With regard to the words, MERE creature, which is 
 a favorite Trinitarian gloss, a kind of tertium quid, as 
 the logicians call it, which you have put upon me, de- 
 signed I suppose to convey the idea of a creature act- 
 ing only by his own power, see what I have said upon, 
 this subject pp. 76, 78, to which it is scarcely worth 
 while for me to add in this place, that they are not 
 my words, it having been my constant practice to 
 speak of our Lord according to his own representa- 
 tion of himself, as a person empowered, assisted, and 
 enabled, by his Father, to perform every mighty act 
 which he has performed already, or is to perform here- 
 after. 
 
 You are too cautious however to venture to take 
 the affirmative upon you, and to assert that the AL- 
 MIGHTY cannot qualify a mere creature, to use your 
 own terms, to judge the whole human race; and in 
 this you are perfectly right, for it would be nothing 
 less than limiting the holy one of Israel, and denying 
 the existence of one of the most essential of his at- 
 tributes, nothing less than affirming, that the AL- 
 MIGHTY is not almighty. You have gone no further
 
 380 
 
 than to say, that it is utterly contrary to Scripture ; 
 which you have not proved. 
 
 When I read, Acts xvii. 30, 31, that God, o go;, 
 standing absolutely, and without qualification, a name 
 by which Christ is never called, but the Father only 
 hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world 
 in righteousness by that incut whom he hath ordained, 
 whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he 
 hath raised him from the dead," I consider that the 
 Judgments which are to be so given, will be the Judg- 
 ments of God himself, which he will pronounce by 
 the agency, or instrumentality, of the man whom he 
 hath ordained, and whom he will qualify, empower, 
 and enable to pronounce them. This would dispose 
 of your quotation from the Psalms, a quotation which 
 you have made, but which the Apostle has not, even 
 if it referred to the general judgment with so much 
 certainty, as to entitle you to quote it upon this occa- 
 sion ; but instead of this, it appears by the following 
 verse to be just as likely to relate to some judgment 
 to be pronounced upon the Israelitish nation only. 
 
 Supposing St. Paul in Rom. xiv. 10, 12, to have 
 quoted Is. xlv. 23, in which Jehovah swears that every 
 knee shall bow to him, which is by no means clear, 
 for some of the words which St. Paul says are written, 
 are not to be found there, for instance the words, " as 
 I live,saith the Lord,"andthe words, "and every tongue 
 shall confess-" whilst on the other hand there is nothing
 
 381 
 
 said by St. Paul about swearing, still it would furnish 
 no proof of Christ being God ; for as God, even the 
 Father, is represented to have committed all judgment 
 to the Son, John v. 22, to have given him authority 
 to execute judgment also, John v. 27, to have de- 
 clared, Acts xvii. 31, that he will judge the world in 
 righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained, the 
 risen and exalted Jesus being here spoken of as a man 
 and nothing more, and in Rom. ii. 16, that he will 
 judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, it is quite 
 plain, that we may consider the judgments of God, 
 who is represented to be the principal, who will judge 
 the world, and of Christ who is represented to-be the 
 agent, by whom God will judge it, to be one and the 
 same thing, and to be the judgments of God himself, 
 without regarding Christ, who is represented to be the 
 agent of God on these occasions, to be himself God. 
 On the contrary, as he is for this purpose called 
 throughout a man, and nothing more, we have no 
 right to infer from it that he is any thing more. So 
 the bowing of the knee to Jesus Christ when invested 
 with the authority, and acting as the representative, 
 of Jehovah, who will dwell in him, and act by him, 
 upon this occasion, will in effect be bowing it to Je- 
 hovah, as every man's giving an account of himself to 
 him upon the same occasion, must in effect be a giv- 
 ing an account of himself to God. 
 
 Thus, if we read in any other book than the Bible, 
 that the King's debtors are to account to him for the
 
 382 
 
 sums they owe him, we understand it immediately to 
 mean, that they are to appear before his officer duly 
 authorized to receive and pass such accounts, and ac- 
 count to him, which it is every day's practice to con- 
 sider, as accounting to the king himself : but if this 
 be so in the case of an earthly sovereign, how much 
 more in that of the omnipresent Father, who is always 
 present with his Judges and ministers every where ! 
 So the judgments pronounced by the King's Judges, 
 are universally considered to be the King's judgments. 
 There is no difficulty upon the subject ; all is plain 
 ABC, except when it connects itself with religious 
 controversy. 
 
 After admitting that the Father hath committed all 
 judgment to him, you tell me, " that when I observe, 
 that it is not said because he is God, but because he 
 is the son of man, I seem to lose sight of the conside- 
 ration that if he were a mere man, it would be the 
 strangest of all reasons, for at that rate every one of 
 us who is so, should be made judge ; but since our 
 Lord voluntarily became son of man, his final glory is 
 given as an appropriate honour and reward," for which 
 you cite again the passage in the 2nd chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Philippians as it stands in the common 
 version, which I have considered already, p. 204 24, 
 and shall refer you to what I have there said, as it will 
 sufficiently speak for itself. 
 
 You appear to forget, that if our Lord's being the 
 son of man be the strangest of all reasons for the fa-
 
 383 
 
 ther's committing all judgment to him, it is the very 
 reason he has himself assigned for it, John v. 27, a 
 reason too, which would not be true, upon the Trini- 
 tarian hypothesis of his being born of a Virgin, for in 
 that case he would not be the son of man, but only 
 the son of woman, and might be expected frequently 
 to be called so, which is not the fact. I should be 
 glad to be informed, where we are told that by the 
 phrase ' son of man,' any thing more is meant than a 
 man, or, if you please, a mere man. Was the prophet 
 Ezekiel any thing more than a man, and is he not 
 called son of man more than fifty times ? In short, 
 he is scarcely ever, if ever, addressed by the Supreme 
 Being in any other terms. Your system requires us 
 to believe, that our Lord could not possibly exercise 
 the office of Judge of all men, unless he was God, 
 and consequently that this was the stro?igest reason 
 for his being appointed to it. If it were so, it would 
 of course be more frequently mentioned, and more 
 strongly insisted upon, than the former, and weaker 
 one, of his being the son of man. But is this the case? 
 Who has ever assigned this reason for it at all ? Popes 
 and councils, and assemblies of Divines, perhaps ; but 
 certainly not Jesus Christ himself, nor any of his 
 Apostles. They have assigned the former reason, and 
 that reason only for it, but are quite silent as to the 
 latter, which is perfectly unaccountable supposing it 
 to be the true one, as it must have been of much more 
 
 2c
 
 384 
 
 importance than the other, and much more essential 
 to be revealed to us. 
 
 Nor would God's appointment of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the man whom he had ordained to be the 
 Judge of the world, as St. Paul says, Acts xvii. 31. 
 because, as he himself informs us, John v. 27. he was 
 the son of man, which is only another form of expres- 
 sion, as is evident from the use of it in Ezekiel 
 throughout, for a man, or, to use your own language, a 
 mere man, though, according to my view of it, a man 
 empowered, assisted, and enabled by the Father, who 
 dwelt, and still dwells in him, be any reason for every 
 one of us, as you oddly conclude, being appointed to 
 the same office, but directly the contrary, for the very 
 same reason, that if it pleased the Almighty Father 
 to elevate a particular individual of the human race 
 to that high station, because he was a man in all 
 things like unto his brethren whom he was to judge, 
 and therefore capable of making every allowance for 
 their various temptations and infirmities, which he 
 had himself been exposed to, as well as they, having 
 once made choice of him for this purpose, as his 
 chosen instrument, the man whom he had ordained, 
 every one of us would of course stand excluded, and 
 find ourselves among the number of those who were 
 to be judged by him. 
 
 In reply to my observations on John xvii. 3. you 
 say, " That you admit, that the Father is the only 
 .
 
 385 
 
 true God, in opposition to idols ; but that it is not 
 said that the Father is the only true God in opposi- 
 tion to the Son, and that I am aware that with your 
 views you should say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, 
 is the only true God, in which you should make the 
 same assertion as the Redeemer did, though with such 
 additions, as I should think inconsistent with it." 
 
 Now it is very extraordinary, that in this whole 
 discourse of our Lord, and it is a very long one, there 
 is no mention, nor any allusion, even the most di- 
 stant, to idols. The words of the verse in question 
 are, " And this is life eternal, that they might know 
 thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
 hast sent" The assertion is absolute. It stands, ex 
 vi termini, in opposition to every other person. It 
 affirms the Father to be the only true God, and ex- 
 cludes, not merely idols, but every other being but 
 the Father, from being such ; for if any other person, 
 whether the Son, or the Apostle Peter, or the Apo- 
 stle Paul, was the true God, or God at all, then the 
 Father could not be the only true God. If on the 
 other hand the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, con- 
 stituted altogether the only true God, then it could 
 not be predicated of the Father alone, that he was the 
 only true God ; but only that he was a constituent 
 part of the only true God. At least we might expect 
 to find somewhere in the Scriptures, the assertion 
 that the Son is the only true God, and that the Holy 
 Ghost is the only true God. But where are we to 
 
 2 c 2
 
 386 
 
 look for any thing of this kind? The declaration here 
 is, that the Father is the only true God, in absolute 
 and unqualified terms, which excludes every other 
 person whomsoever from being entitled to that appel- 
 lation. This allegation of our Lord, that the Father 
 is the only true God, is no more in opposition to 
 angels, or kings, or prophets, than to himself ; and 
 yet being an absolute and unrestricted assertion, it 
 excludes them all, as well as himself. The words in 
 short are so clear, and plain, in their obvious and 
 natural sense, that no doubt of their meaning could 
 arise in the mind of any man, who had not previously 
 heard of a system to be supported, to which, accord- 
 ing to their plain grammatical construction, they are 
 in direct opposition, and to which the advocates for 
 that system find it impossible to reconcile them, with- 
 out making most unauthorised and inconsistent ad- 
 ditions to them. 
 
 When two persons are introduced to our notice, 
 and one of them, namely the Son, calls the other, the 
 only true God, I am at a loss to conceive upon what 
 principle of common sense, we can, believing him to 
 speak the truth, contradict him, and say that he him- 
 self is also the only true God. If with your views 
 you can affirm that the Father, Son and Spirit is the 
 only true God, I can only say, that this proves in my 
 judgment, that the views you entertain are unscriptu- 
 ral and erroneous. Where do the Scriptures say that 
 the Father, Son and Spirit is the only true God?
 
 387 
 
 Where do they say that either the Son or the Spirit 
 is the only true God, or call either of them the true 
 God ? You certainly would not, in saying that the 
 Father, Son and Spirit were the only true God, be 
 making the same assertion that the Redeemer did, for 
 he only asserted that the FATHER was the only true 
 God, but said not a syllable of the Son, or the Spirit, 
 being the only true God, much less that all three 
 were. If there be any distinction of persons at all in 
 the supposed Trinity, the one is not the other, and 
 what is spoken of one only, is not spoken of either of 
 the others. Our Lord's assertion therefore, that the 
 Father is the only true God, and yours, that the Fa- 
 ther, Son and Spirit is the only true God, are any 
 thing but the same assertion. These are indeed such 
 unauthorised additions to the word of God, as no man, 
 or body of men whatever, is in my opinion entitled 
 to make. How should we poor Unitarians be abused, 
 and vilified, by some of your Trinitarian brethren, if 
 we were to venture to make such inconsistent and 
 unauthorised additions, in favour of the Unitarian 
 doctrines ! 
 
 The Almighty Father, who, as the Author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews remarks, spake by the Pro- 
 phets, has by those Prophets declared, that he the 
 Father alone is God, that there is none else, no God 
 besides him, none like him, none equal to him, none 
 to be compared to him. 
 
 In the passage in question, our Lord mentions him-
 
 388 
 
 self as contradistinguished from the Father, that is, as 
 a person sent by him, and applies the epithet of the 
 only true God to the Father, but not to himself, there- 
 by clearly excluding himself, and acknowledging that 
 he was not God. 
 
 There is a passage in one of this Evangelist's epi- 
 stles, I John v. 20, very much resembling this in 
 point of expression, which, as it has been considered 
 by many Trinitarians to be favourable to their hypo- 
 thesis, though in my judgment wholly adverse to it, 
 and also because each passage appears to me to throw 
 great light upon the other, I shall here introduce, and 
 offer some remarks upon. The words are, " And we 
 know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us 
 an understanding, that we may know him that is true, 
 and we are in him that is true, in, or by, his son Jesus 
 Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." 
 
 In this passage we have these distinct propositions, 
 first, that Jesus Christ has given us understanding that 
 we may know, not himself, but him that is true ; se- 
 condly, that we are in him that is true, in or by, his 
 son Jesus Christ. It is evident therefore, that by 
 him that is true, and Jesus Christ, are meant two di- 
 stinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 him that is true, consequently by him that is true is 
 meant the Father. Then follow the words " this is 
 the true God and eternal life," and the question is, to 
 which antecedent the words, 'the true God,' are design- 
 ed to be applied. Nothing would be more fallacious,
 
 than to say, that they must be applied to the last, in- 
 stances to the contrary occurring continually in every 
 known language. To bring proofs however from the 
 Scriptures, and from this very Apostle, if we look in- 
 to 2 John 7, we shall find, "Many deceivers are 
 entered into the world, who confess not, that Jesus 
 Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and 
 an Antichrist." Here if we refer the words, * this is a 
 deceiver and an antichrist,' to the last antecedent, we 
 shall pronounce Jesus Christ himself to be a deceiver 
 and an antichrist!!! See also Acts iv. 2, and vii. 19. 
 
 It must be determined therefore by the context, 
 and by the general scope and design of the writer, in 
 such cases, whether the words which may at any time 
 be in question, are to be referred to the proximate, 
 or more remote, antecedent. Here he that is true, 
 being in the preceding part of the passage mentioned 
 twice, as the predicate, the person principally spoken 
 of, Jesus Christ, being only introduced collaterally, as 
 the agent, or instrument, by whom we know, and by 
 whom we are in, him that is true, it is most natural 
 and probable, upon the face of the passage, to refer 
 the words, * this is the true God,' to the antecedent 'him 
 that is true,' and to consider the apostle as meaning 
 to assert, that he that is true, whom he had just be- 
 fore mentioned, is the true Goo, nothing more being 
 wanted, than the word 'God,' which is here supplied, 
 to complete the description of him, which would other- 
 wise have been left somewhat imperfect. The Apa-
 
 390 
 
 stle had not said that Jesus Christ was he that is true, 
 but, on the contrary, that he was the son of him that 
 is true, and therefore there is every reason for con- 
 cluding, that he designed to call him that is true, 
 whose son he had just before described Jesus Christ 
 to be, the true God. He had before applied the word 
 true, to him, and no one eke, and now he completes 
 the description, by calling him the true God. Nor 
 is it to be supposed, that the Apostle, when he wrote 
 this text, had quite forgotten, that our Lord himself, 
 in one of the conversations, which he the Apostle had 
 himself recorded in his own gospel, (John xvii. 3.) 
 had expressly declared, that his Father was the ONLY 
 true GOD, which seems to me to be quite irrefraga- 
 ble. 
 
 It appears likewise in my judgment, that -one part 
 of the passage refers chiefly to a person, namely to 
 him that is true, who is described to be the Father, in 
 words too plain to be mistaken, and another part of 
 it to a thing, or state, namely, the being in him by 
 Jesus Christ. Then follow the words, ' this is the true 
 God and eternal life,' meaning he that is true is the 
 true God, and being in him by Jesus Christ is eternal 
 life. This gives a clear, consistent, and rational in- 
 terpretation, free from every difficulty, and perfectly 
 in unison with the declaration of our Lord himself, 
 as given by the same Evangelist John xvii. 3. above 
 referred to. 
 
 I must not however omit to notice, that Griesbach,
 
 381 
 
 though he does not reject the words, Iqcov 
 marks them as doubtful, stating the evidence for this 
 opinion, and if they are not genuine, aurov> which re- 
 fers to the Father, will be the next antecedent. To 
 Griesbach's doubts of the genuineness of the words, 
 I'/l(rov Xg>/cTot>, I must add the fact, that no writer be- 
 fore the Council of Nice interprets the words, * this is 
 the true God,' as denoting Christ. Now, though I lay 
 no stress upon all this, yet it is impossible to avoid 
 observing, that even if there were no such reasons as I 
 have assigned against the Trinitarian construction of 
 the verse, as it now stands, a doubtful text would be 
 no authority, for a doctrine so marvellous, and extra- 
 ordinary, as that of the Trinity. You, my friend, I 
 admit, have been too cautious to quote it. I have 
 introduced it merely because I consider it connected 
 with, and confirming, John xvii. 3. the text you have 
 noticed, and as proving, in conjunction with it, that 
 the Father alone is, and that the Son is not, the true 
 God. 
 
 After remarking, as is very true, that I think 1 Cor. 
 viii. 4 b' decisive in my favour, you add, " Yet you 
 would not admit, that when the Apostle asserts to us, 
 that there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, he excludes 
 the Father from Lordship over us, for you would say 
 he means only to exclude the false Lords of the hea- 
 then whom he had just mentioned. I ask for no 
 other than such an explanation of the preceding words, 
 ' to us there is but one God the Father.' "
 
 392 
 
 Now here, my friend, you mistake me entirely. I 
 certainly contend, that when the Apostle declares 
 verse 4, that there is no other God but one, and 
 verse 6, that to us there is but one God, and tells us 
 who that God is, that is the Father, this stands abso- 
 lute, and excludes all other persons, whether Pagan 
 Gods or any other persons whomsoever. In my opi- 
 nion, whenever a Christian uses the expression, 'unto 
 us there is but one God,' he must be understood to 
 make use of it absolutely, and not merely in opposi- 
 tion to the particular Gods of the persons he may 
 happen to be conversing with, or to any particular 
 Gods who may have been spoken of, or alluded to. 
 If the Apostle Paul could be supposed to have ad- 
 dressed himself to the Corinthian idolators, and to 
 have said to them, You Corinthians have many Gods, 
 Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Minerva, &c., but unto us 
 Christians there is but one God, the Father, could 
 any of them have supposed for an instant, that he did 
 not intend to speak absolutely, in exclusion of all 
 other Gods whomsoever ; but only in opposition to 
 Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Minerva, and the other sup- 
 posed Divinities adored by themselves ; or have ima- 
 gined, if they had ever heard of Thor, Woden, Bra- 
 mah, Sceva, Vishnu, or any other deities of the Saxons 
 or Indians, who did not happen to be then mention- 
 ed or alluded to, that they were not to be excluded ; 
 or that the Apostle intended to leave it uncertain 
 whether the Christians might not have other Gods
 
 of their own, besides the Father ? Considering there- 
 fore the Apostle's expression, 'unto to us there is but 
 one God, the Father,' to stand absolute, and to ex- 
 clude all other persons whomsoever from being God, 
 it follows that I cannot believe Jesus Christ to be 
 God, consistently with the Apostle's declaration. 
 When therefore he declares immediately after, that 
 unto us there is but one Lord, and states who that 
 Lord is, namely Jesus Christ, every person but Jesus 
 Christ is also excluded from being Lord to us, and 
 we have only to inquire what is meant by the term 
 Lord, as applied to him, and in what sense it is so 
 applied. It will be necessary to go but a very little 
 way to ascertain this, for we have it from the mouth 
 of the Apostle Peter, Acts ii. 36. that he was a dele- 
 gated Lord, appointed by the Father. His words are, 
 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, 
 that God, o 0goc, hath made that same Jesus, whom 
 ye have crucified, both Lord, and Christ ;" and by 
 verse 31. it appears, that God here spoken of was the 
 Father. So in Philipp. ii. 9, 11, St. Paul informs 
 us, that God hath highly exalted Christ, and given 
 him a name which is above every name, that every 
 tongue should confess, that he is Lord, and to whose 
 glory ? To his own ? No. To the glory of God the 
 Father, meaning clearly, as the person who had ap- 
 pointed and made him Lord. I therefore not only 
 admit, but maintain, that when the Apostle asserts, 
 that to us there is but one Lord, or Master, as the
 
 394 
 
 word xvpiog is frequently rendered, he had in view 
 Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ only, as that one Lord, 
 that is, as a delegated Lord among men in things spi- 
 ritual, by the Father's appointment, and did not mean 
 to include, either the Father, who had made him such 
 Lord, or any of the Lords or Masters of any people 
 or sect whatever, whether Jew or Gentile. 
 
 It is evident, that the word xvoto;, here used, which 
 is translated Lord or Master, does not mean God, for 
 that word had been made use of but just before, and 
 applied to the Father, and not to Christ, and this is 
 used immediately after, as if of secondary importance, 
 and applied to Christ ; but to whomsoever it applied, 
 it must have meant some other person than God, and 
 I need not remind you, that every other person than 
 God must be infinitely inferior to God. It could not 
 have meant Lord or Master in temporal things, be- 
 cause in such things Christians are commanded to 
 acknowledge the authority, and submit to the lawful 
 commands of the powers that be. It must therefore 
 have meant Lord or Master in spiritual things. Now 
 the Corinthian idolaters of that day had many Lords 
 or Masters in spiritual things, under their Gods, who 
 had just before been spoken of. They had one Lord 
 or Master under Jupiter, in the priest of Jupiter, an- 
 other under Juno, in the priest of Juno, another un- 
 der Apollo, in the priest of Apollo, and another under 
 Minerva, in the priest of Minerva. This brings us 
 at once to the meaning of the phrase, and a beauti-
 
 395 
 
 ful, and well connected meaning it is, namely, that 
 they having many Gods, had many spiritual Lords or 
 Masters under their Gods, and that we Christians, 
 having but one God, namely, the Father, have but 
 one Lord or Master in spiritual things under ours. 
 Our God, namely the Father, being also the one only 
 God, the term, when applied to him, is capable of be- 
 ing used absolutely to the exclusion of all others, and 
 being the only God, he might, and as we are tol.d in 
 Scripture did, appoint only one Lord or Master in 
 spiritual things under him, that is Christ, and he be- 
 ing the only one invested with that character, the 
 term was capable of being applied to him likewise 
 absolutely, to the exclusion of all others. When we 
 have once ascertained what is the meaning of the term, 
 it is perfectly clear, that unto us Christians there is 
 but one Lord or Master, but one person of this de- 
 scription, that is Jesus Christ, and we are frequently 
 commanded to recognise no other. 
 
 If the word Lord, however, was to be understood, 
 not in the sense which the Apostle gives to it, but in a 
 more general and indefinite sense, I should consider 
 myself well entitled to say, that the case of the Father, 
 whose authority is original and supreme, and that of 
 the Son, whose power is delegated and limited, are not 
 at all similar, and quote, as perfectly applicable, the 
 Apostle Paul's words I Cor. xv. 27, shewing that the 
 Father must always upon such occasions be consider- 
 ed to be excepted, which are, " But when he saith
 
 396 
 
 all things are put under him," that is Christ, " it \s?fia- 
 nifcst, that he is excepted, who did put all things 
 under him." Now if we look only to the 24th verse 
 of the same chapter, we shall find, that he who is ex- 
 cepted is the Father and the Father only. So that, 
 according to the Apostle's view, the Father must upon 
 all such occasions be understood to be excepted, as a 
 thing of course, whether it be mentioned or not. But 
 let me ask you, when the sole sovereignty, the sole 
 Godhead of the Father is mentioned, when it is said 
 in so many parts of Scripture, that there is none be- 
 side him, none equal to him, none like him, none to 
 be compared to him, how it is that there is no such 
 exception to be found, no not one, in favour of the 
 Son, the supposed second person in the Trinity, or in 
 favour of the Holy Spirit, the supposed third person 
 in the Trinity, and, what is not a little curious, in this 
 very passage, where the Father is expressly excepted, 
 the Holy Spirit is not, nor is any notice taken of it, 
 so that if it were a person, he would be one of the 
 things put by the Father under Jesus Christ, which 
 renders it evident, that the Apostle had never heard 
 of its being such, nor of any such doctrine as that of 
 the Trinity. 
 
 So when, after adverting to the many false Gods of 
 the heathens, chap. viii. 4, he was expressly speak- 
 ing of the God of the Christians, and declaring to his 
 Corinthian brethren who he was, would he, if he had 
 not been an Unitarian himself, have expressed him-
 
 397 
 
 self exactly as the Unitarians do, and as every Uni* 
 tarian would, " Unto us there is but one God, the 
 Father?" Would he, if he had been a Trinitarian, 
 have contented himself with naming as their God one 
 of the persons only of whom the Trinitarian God is 
 supposed to consist, and telling them that that was 
 their God, leaving them quite in the dark as to the 
 existence of any other person necessary to constitute 
 him such, though he knew all the while, not only that 
 he consisted of two other coequal and coeternal per- 
 sons, as well as the Father, but that it was essential 
 to their salvation, that they should know and believe 
 it too ? A mode of proceeding calculated entirely to 
 mislead them, and to make them, what I contend 
 they were, all Unitarians. Would he not, if he had 
 been a Trinitarian, have said to them fairly, and bona 
 fide, at once, as every Trinitarian would upon such an 
 occasion, ' Unto us there is but one God, the Father 
 Son and Spirit, who are one ? ' But this he never does, 
 nor any thing like it, either here, or in any other 
 place. 
 
 I quoted Dr. Doddridge, who. with other commen- 
 tators considered the phrase, ' ascending up into Hea- 
 ven,' to be figurative, and not to mean a local ascent, 
 first, because being a Trinitarian, he was likely to feel 
 no bias on my side of the question, and secondly, be- 
 cause it appeared to me to be necessary so to consi- 
 der it, in order to render it consistent with other parts 
 of Scripture ; but it does not follow, that I must
 
 398 
 
 therefore, agreeably to your recommendation, adopt 
 another interpretation which I find there, namely, that 
 hy heavenly things is to be understood, inter alia, the 
 eternal generation of the Son, for which he has pro- 
 duced neither authority nor argument, and for which 
 it does not appear that there is the slightest reason of 
 any kind. 
 
 But as this subject is once more before me, I shall 
 add another proof from the 6th chapter of St. John, 
 to those I have already furnished you with, p. 95, that 
 * ascending up into Heaven,' and * coming down from 
 Heaven/- cannot be understood to mean a literal and 
 local ascent, or descent; but must be taken figura- 
 tively throughout. Our Lord says, verse 51, "lam 
 the living bread which came down from Heaven. If 
 any one shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, 
 and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the 
 life of the world." Again, verse 56. " He who eateth 
 my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and 
 I in him." And finally, verse 58, " This is the bread 
 which came down from Heaven. Not as your fathers 
 did eat manna, and are dead. He who eateth of this 
 bread shall live for-ever." Is it not obvious that the 
 whole passage is figurative ? Will any one venture to 
 assert, that at the time our Lord uttered this discourse, 
 \\isflesh had ever been in Heaven ? But if we inter- 
 pret literally, and locally, our Lord's words, John iii. 
 13, "No one hath ascended up into Heaven, but he 
 \vho came down from Heaven, even the Son of man
 
 399 
 
 who is in Heaven," will they he true ? Did not Elijah 
 ascend up into Heaven ? But if on the other hand we 
 explain them figuratively, remembering that our Lord 
 was then speaking of the new dispensation, which had 
 been just revealed to him, and to him only, in all its 
 parts, as he was to publish it to mankind, by God 
 who had sent him forth amongst them for that pur- 
 pose, interpret his declaration, that no one had as- 
 cended up into Heaven, to signify, that no one but 
 himself had been admitted into, and made acquainted 
 with, the Divine counsels with respect to this dispen- 
 sation as it was to be promulgated by him for the be- 
 nefit of the human race! there will be neither contra- 
 diction, nor difficulty. But whether we adopt this, 
 which I place no reliance upon, or any other figura- 
 tive explanation of the passage, which any one else 
 may think better adapted to it, it is quite plain, that 
 it cannot be taken literally ; and if ' ascending up into 
 Heaven' cannot be taken literally, as meaning a local 
 ascent, so neither can its co-relative ' coming down 
 from Heaven,' as signifying a local descent : but if 
 'ascending up into Heaven' means beingadmitted into, 
 and made acquainted with, the counsels of God with 
 respect to the Gospel dispensation, 'coming down from 
 Heaven' may, as has been very judiciously remarked, 
 signify the bringing them down and publishing them 
 to the world. We have some illustration of the force 
 of such expressions, in the first Chapter of this very 
 Gospel, verse 0, where John having received a divine 
 
 2 D
 
 40(1 
 
 revelation, and having been sent forth to publish it to 
 the world, is said to have been a man sent from God, 
 though it has never been supposed that he had ever 
 been in any other world than this. 
 
 You quite mistake me, if you suppose, that I reject 
 any of the existing creeds because they were held by 
 Fathers and Councils. I reject them, first, because 
 they contain doctrines not only not contained in, but 
 contrary to, the Scriptures ; and secondly, because I 
 deny the authority of any uninspired men, or body of 
 men whatever, to establish creeds as necessary to be 
 believed by Christians. They have no warrant in the 
 Scriptures for the exercise of such a power, and the 
 creeds they have framed, have not only been contra- 
 dictory and absurd, but have from age to age proved 
 the sources of incalculable discord, misery and blood- 
 shed. In this respect every Christian is, according 
 to the best of his opportunity and ability, to examine 
 and judge for himself, and is not bound to subscribe 
 to the opinions of any other men, or body of men 
 whatever. He has a right to stand fast in that liberty 
 with which Christ has made him free, and to acknow- 
 ledge no other master on earth, in his religious con- 
 cerns, but him. If he chooses to unite with his 
 brethren in Christian worship, he is entitled so to do, 
 and no one can plead any authority from Christ, or 
 his apostles, for throwing down such stumbling-blocks 
 before him, as the creeds complained of. 
 
 That these creeds deserve the epithets I have ap-
 
 401 
 
 plied to them, will appear on the first examination of 
 their contents, of which I shall furnish two or three 
 instances, which will be quite sufficient for this pur* 
 pose. By the most ancient, which is called the Apo- 
 stles' creed, but which the apostles had as little to do 
 with the fabrication of, as ourselves, we are called 
 upon to say, " I believe in God the Father Almighty, 
 maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his 
 only son our Lord," declaring him to be the Son of 
 God, the Father Almighty; which is strictly scrip- 
 tural and proper : but this is instantly contradicted by 
 the words immediately following, " who was conceived 
 by the Holy Ghost" representing him to have been 
 conceived bv, and consequently to have been the Son 
 of, the Holy Ghost, instead of the Son of the Father 
 Almighty, as had but just before been alleged. There 
 is no escaping from this dilemma, but either by say- 
 ing, without any authority, that this relates to his hu- 
 man nature only, in which case he had two fathers, 
 one for his supposed divine, and another for his human 
 nature ; or by acknowledging that the Holy Ghost is 
 not a person, but only the power and energy of the 
 Father himself: but this is abandoning the Trinity 
 altogether. The words, " I believe in the Holy Ghost, 
 the Holy Catholic church," and so on to the end, were 
 added long after the fabrication of the former part of 
 the creed. 
 
 The next is the Nicene creed, commencing with 
 the clause, " I believe in God the Father Almighty, 
 
 o
 
 402 
 
 maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible 
 and invisible," which is strictly scriptural. We shall 
 see whether the clause following is of the same de- 
 scription. It is, "and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 only begotten Son of God, begotten by his Father 
 before all worlds, very God of very God, begotten, 
 not made, being of one substance with the Father, by 
 whom all things were made ;" meaning undeniably 
 throughout, his supposed divine nature, the human 
 nature not then having any existence ; "who," mean- 
 ing the divine nature, " for us men, and for our sal- 
 vation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by 
 the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary, and was made 
 man, and," still meaning the divine nature, for such is 
 the construction, there being no exception or inti- 
 mation to the contrary, " was crucified for us under 
 Pontius Pilate. He " (still meaning the divine nature 
 as well as the rest) " suffered and was buried, and the 
 third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, 
 and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right 
 hand of the Father, and he shall come again with 
 glory to judge both the quick and the (kad, and whose 
 kingdom shall have no end? Now where is there to 
 be found in the Scriptures any thing like this ? Alas 
 for the lack of common sense, or common reflection, 
 amongst the creed-makers of that period, who could 
 represent the supposed divine nature of our Lord, that 
 is,, according to their ideas of him, the Almighty, 
 eternal, immortal, and invisible God, to have been
 
 403 
 
 crucified^ DEAD AND BURIED! ! ! And how came they, 
 when they affirmed that his kingdom should have no 
 end, to forget that they were flatly contradicting St 
 Paul, who says, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, " then cometh the 
 END, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to 
 God, even the FATHER, when he shall have put down 
 all rule, and all authority, and power ; for he must 
 reign, /zY/he hath put all enemies under his feet;" and 
 verse 28, " And when all things shall be subdued unto 
 him, then shall the son also himself be SUBJECT unto 
 him that put all things under him, that God, 6 Qzo;" 
 meaning the Father, not only by the use of this ap- 
 pellation, which is applied absolutely to none but the 
 Father, but by having expressly declared to us but just 
 before, who God, o Qzog, is, that is, even the Father, 
 " may be all in all," shewing the complete termina- 
 tion of his kingdom, which the Nicene creed contra- 
 dicts, by declaring that it shall have no end. The last 
 clause says, " I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord 
 and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and 
 the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is 
 worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets." 
 Can any one affirm this to be scriptural ? In the first 
 place it is hardly consistent with the first part of the 
 creed, which represents the Father to have created 
 all things : and consequently to have been the Lord 
 and giver of life to all his creatures, to call the Holy 
 Ghost the Lord and giver of life, which no such 
 person is declared to be in Scripture : secondly, the
 
 404 
 
 Holy Ghost is never said in the Scriptures to be wor- 
 shiped or glorified by any one, or at all, much less to 
 be worshiped and glorified together with the Father : 
 and thirdly, in the Epistle to the Hebrews i. 1, the 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is stated to have been 
 he who spake by the Prophets, and therefore if they 
 are even said to have been moved, or influenced, by 
 the Holy Spirit, it must have been by the Holy Spirit 
 of the Father, or, in other words, by the Father him- 
 self, who alone is referred to, and declared to be a 
 Spirit, John iv. 24. and not another person, called 
 the Holy Spirit. Numerous are the instances in the 
 Scriptures of the Spirit of God being put for God 
 himself, as well as the Spirit of a man, for the man 
 himself. 
 
 Last of all comes that strange composition called 
 the Creed of St. Athanasius, with its unscriptural and 
 damnatory clauses, which has no prototype or simi- 
 litude in any part of the sacred writings, and which 
 no one will now venture to say ever proceeded from 
 the pen of St. Athanasius, a creed which many of 
 the most eminent and learned men of all parties, in- 
 cluding Archbishop Tillotson, have for the last two 
 centuries wished us well rid of, and which in the 
 United States of America was many years ago, 
 upon deliberate examination, struck out, as wholly 
 unscriptural and indefensible. 
 
 This document opens a wide field for remark, if it 
 were necessary, or convenient. I shall content myself
 
 405 
 
 however with a single observation. The author, with- 
 out the slightest foundation in Scripture, informs his 
 reader, that it is necessary to everlasting salvation, 
 that he should believe rightly the incarnation of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; but does not condescend to inform 
 him, in any part of the creed, what the incarnation is, 
 nor how it is to be believed, in order that he may ob- 
 tain that everlasting salvation, which, he gravely tells 
 him, depends upon his right belief of it ; but after 
 some propositions not easy to be understood, relative 
 to our Saviour's supposed composition, which are 
 likewise wholly without warrant in Scripture, a few 
 sentences further on informs him, that our Lord is 
 one Christ, not by the conversion of the Godhead into 
 the flesh, but by the taking of the manhood into God, 
 which is an INDEATION, if I may once more use the 
 term, and the very contrary to an incarnation ! 
 
 Towards the close of your Letter, you have recourse 
 to observations very common with persons entertain- 
 ing your sentiments, when they feel themselves pressed 
 by reasons which they find it difficult to answer, " that 
 you did not expect by mere argument to reconcile me 
 to the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity, with the 
 other doctrines which are connected with them ; for 
 that you well know, that fact confirms, what the Scrip- 
 tures fully testify, that the reception of these sen- 
 timents, so as to render them vital and efficacious, 
 depends upon a certain state of mind, produced by the
 
 406 
 
 Holy Spirit ; yet as religion is a reasonable service, 
 and the obligation to receive these truths arises from 
 their being revealed with sufficient evidence, you deem 
 it a duty to present that evidence where you have an 
 opportunity, yet you say you should expect more ef- 
 fect from one glimpse of our true condition before 
 God as guilty and depraved, than from ten thousand 
 arguments, though delivered by Logic herself and 
 enforced by all the powers of eloquence." 
 
 It seems extraordinary to me, that it should never 
 once have occurred to you, that all that is advanced 
 in this passage rests upon mere assumption, a pctitio 
 principii, from the beginning to the end. Where, my 
 good friend, do the Scriptures speak of the divinity of 
 Christ, or of the Trinity at all ? You have not yet fa- 
 voured me with any reference to them, which proves 
 cither the one or the other. I should be much in* 
 debted to you if you could inform me where the Scrip- 
 tures fully testify, that the reception of the doctrines 
 of the divinity of Christ, and of the Trinity, so as to 
 render them vital and efficacious, depends upon a 
 certain state of mind produced by the Holy Spirit. 
 Where do the Scriptures represent these doctrines as 
 triitlis ? Where do they reveal them with sufficient 
 evidence to render the belief of them obligatory upon 
 us, or in fact reveal them to us at all ? Why should 
 you suppose that none but persons of your persuasion 
 have? a single glimpse of their true condition before
 
 407 
 
 God, as guilty and depraved ? Is the Calvinist so un- 
 charitable, as to suppose that no Christian walks 
 humbly with his God but himself? 
 
 Most happily we are not obliged to obtain just 
 views of our true state and condition by peeps and 
 glimpses. Thanks be to that gracious Being who hath 
 dealt so bountifully with us, the sun of Righteousness 
 has risen, and has poured a flood of light around us. 
 In Christianity every thing necessary to make us wise 
 unto salvation is placed in broad day-light, and open 
 sunshine ; and we have nothing to do but to open 
 our eyes wide, and look about us, to see our course 
 marked out distinctly and clearly for us ; but we are 
 too apt to prefer the darkness of MYSTERY, to the 
 light of Revelation, to like most, what we understand 
 least, to prefer groping our way about by the dim 
 rush-light of our own invention, in gloom of our own 
 making, instead of walking with security in the bright 
 radiance, and under the benign influence, of that glo- 
 rious luminary, which shines with so much splendour 
 round us. 
 
 I have perused the Letter of Dr. Stock, to which 
 you refer me, and find that he does not support his 
 change of opinion either by reason or Scripture, but 
 founds it principally upon internal feelings, which 
 are of one description in one man, and of another, 
 and perhaps totally different, in another, and by which 
 multitudes of delusive systems incapable of any ra^ 
 tional proof, and often diametrically opposite to each
 
 408 
 
 other, have in almost every age of Christianity been 
 attempted to be established. 
 
 How you can imagine the two supposed first chap- 
 ters of St. Matthew to be confirmed by the two sup- 
 posed first chapters of St Luke, is inconceivable to 
 me. I think I have demonstrated in the preceding 
 parts of this Letter, as well as in my former ones, that 
 they are completely at war with each other, and that 
 it is impossible to reconcile them. 
 
 I must not conclude, however, without noticing the 
 representation you make of your peculiar sentiments, 
 as one of those persons who denominate themselves 
 Evangelical ; and the comparison you draw between 
 your system, and that of the Unitarians, though, as 
 you have rather censured some of the latter for their 
 supposed appropriation to themselves of the word 
 Unitarian, I must rally you and your friends a little, 
 upon your assumption of that of Evangelical, which I 
 cannot do better, than in the words of a very eminent 
 and learned person now no more, who, speaking of 
 you as a body, said, They certainly ought not to be 
 called Evangelical, but JEpistolarians, for there is not 
 a word of their peculiar doctrines to be found in the 
 Gospels, their whole system being built upon a mis- 
 conception of the meaning of a few detached pas- 
 sages in the Epistles. 
 
 I am aware, that though the great body of Chris- 
 tians in this country have not embraced your tenets, 
 yet you are a very numerous and respectable body,
 
 400 
 
 and I should be sorry to give offence to any of you, 
 which I shall certainly never do personally, whatever 
 I in ay be thought to do through the medium of your 
 opinions, which I am obliged to animadvert upon, 
 and contrast, with those of the Unitarians, in con- 
 sequence of the representations you have made of the 
 latter, in comparison with the former. 
 
 You tell me "that you are afflicted at what I say 
 concerning my confident conclusion in favour of what 
 are called Unitarian sentiments, for that they appear 
 to you, to leave a creature who has sinned, and 
 broken his maker's laws, without a foundation on 
 which he can stand at the tribunal of his judge ; that 
 the atonement which the Scriptures declare to be the 
 grand design of Christ's coming, requires the divinity 
 of Christ, that it may satisfy divine Justice ; and that 
 if I could disprove the divinity and atonement of 
 Christ, I should only prove, that we had our religion 
 to seek, for that that of the Scriptures could not meet 
 the necessities of fallen man." 
 
 This passage furnishes another melancholy instance 
 of the manner in which the sacred writings are in- 
 cautiously appealed to, for what they do not contain. 
 Where, my dear Sir, do the Scriptures declare the 
 atonement to be the grand design of Christ's coming ? 
 and where do you find, that any such atonement re- 
 quires the divinity of Christ, that it may satisfy di- 
 vine justice ? Such assertions have without scruple 
 been echoed from one body of divines to another, till
 
 they are supposed to be verity itself; but the Scrip- 
 tures, to which the appeal is so confidently made, con- 
 tain no such declarations. There happens to be no 
 such word as atonement in the whole of the New 
 Testament, except in the common version. There it 
 is to be met with once only, and in that single in- 
 stance is a mistranslation of the Greek word %ara7.7Myj]v, 
 which is upon every other occasion, without any ex- 
 ception, rendered reconciliation, which, as is very re- 
 markable, is always used to denote the reconciliation 
 of man to God, and not the reconciliation of God to 
 man, and consequently is the reverse of what would 
 be required by your doctrine of atonement. 
 
 Nothing can be more curious than the fact, that 
 this very passage in the Epistle to the Romans chap. v. 
 ver. 10, 1 1 . in which the word /jaraA/.ay;^ is mistrans- 
 lated * atonement,' instead of ( reconciliation,' is sub- 
 versive of the modern doctrine of the Atonement. 
 The words are, "For if when we were enemies, we 
 were reconciled (xctra^cfyr^zy) to God by the death 
 of his Son, much more being reconciled (zuru/JMyiv- 
 rtg), we shall be saved by his life, and not only so, but 
 we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom we have now received the reconciliation (ra/.- 
 >.7^)." Here the very same word is used in the very 
 same passage three times, in the two former of which 
 it is rendered ' reconciled,' and reconciliation is the 
 subject ; and yet where it stands in the third place, the 
 common version, without any cause, or any authority,
 
 411 
 
 renders it atonement * ; which cannot possihly he the 
 meaning ; and, if it were, would be destructive of the 
 Calvinistic doctrine, for it would represent man, instead 
 of God, to have received the atonement. But it would 
 be preposterous to suppose, that an atonement was to 
 be made to, or received by, the guilty and rebellious 
 party. When it was made under the law, for offences 
 committed against God, as the sovereign of the 
 Israelitish nation, which was principally for ceremo- 
 nial offences, and never in any case where the of- 
 fender had committed offences punishable with death, 
 it was made by the offending and rebellious subject, 
 to God his king, in the form of a present or offering, 
 as a token of his contrition, and return to his duty 
 and allegiance to his Sovereign ; but by whomsoever 
 the offering was made, it was never received by the of- 
 fender himself, but by the priest who represented 
 God the Sovereign. I lay no stress however upon 
 this, it being quite sufficient for me to shew, that the 
 word zaruXKuyTiy ought to have been translated ' re- 
 conciliation,' which takes away all pretence for con- 
 sidering the passage an authority for the doctrine of 
 the Atonement. The strange notion, that every offence 
 committed against an infinite Being, is an infinite of- 
 fence, and requires an infinite satisfaction, or infinite 
 punishment, though it may be found in the regions of 
 poetry, in Milton's Paradise Lost for instance, receives 
 
 * The Vulgate renders it reconciliationetn.
 
 412 
 
 no sanction from the Holy Scriptures, and as little 
 from reason and common sense. How can the offences 
 of a finite creature be infinite ? A finite being cannot 
 possess infinite powers. His powers, like himself, 
 must be limited and finite, as we know the powers of 
 all the human race to be. His acts consequently, not 
 being capable of exceeding his powers, must be finite 
 also, and every offence he commits must be, either 
 the doing of some act which he ought not to have 
 done, which act must necessarily be within his powers 
 and be finite, or the neglecting to do some act which 
 he ought to have done, and which must also be an 
 act within his powers, and be a finite act likewise, the 
 neglecting to do which must be the finite neglect of 
 a finite creature, and consequently cannot constitute 
 an infinite offence. 
 
 It is said, that the offence being committed against 
 an infinite Being, partakes of his nature and becomes 
 infinite, as an offence against a King in this world is 
 a greater offence than one committed against a sub- 
 ject ; but independently of there not being any thing 
 to be found in Scripture about infinite offences, the 
 whole is a fallacy. The acts of an infinite being may 
 partake of his nature and be infinite ; but the acts of 
 a finite being, against whomsoever directed, cannot 
 partake of the nature of another person from whom 
 they do not emanate, but must partake of his own 
 nature, and be within the extent of his powers, and 
 consequently be finite. If every act of disobedience
 
 ill 
 
 to the Supreme Being were infinite, every act of 
 obedience, every act of prayer and praise to him by 
 finite and limited mortals, must be infinite likewise, 
 and, shocking and absurd as it would be, ought to be 
 called so. But what should we think of a man who 
 should seriously tell us, that he had heard one person 
 make an infinite prayer, another person sing an in- 
 finite hymn to, and a third person preach an infinite 
 sermon in honour of, the Supreme Being ? 
 
 It is not true, that all offences committed against 
 Sovereigns are greater, or are more severely punished, 
 than such as are committed against subjects. If a 
 child were to steal a gooseberry out of a king's gar- 
 den, we should be horrified if we were told that he 
 was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered for 
 it : yet how many believe, that the Supreme Being, 
 the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, 
 would inflict upon the unhappy culprit, for the very 
 same offence, unutterable torments in the lake that 
 burns with fire and brimstone to all eternity, unless 
 an infinite satisfaction were made for it ! 
 
 Attempts against the life, or the throne, of an 
 earthly monarch are undoubtedly considered greater 
 offences, and visited with more severe punishment, 
 than any offences against his subjects. But why ? 
 Because by such attempts the one may be destroyed 
 and the other overthrown, and possibly the whole na- 
 tion ruined. But the KING OF KINGS, the mighty 
 Maker of the Universe, holds Ins existence and an-
 
 414 
 
 thority by no such precarious tenure. Nothing that 
 can be done by all, or any of his creatures, can in the 
 least endanger Him, or defeat the most inconsiderable 
 of his purposes. The rage of the nations against Him 
 he laughs to scorn, and holds them in the highest de- 
 rision, making all their impotent efforts contribute to 
 the fulfilment of his great designs, and the accom- 
 plishment of the gracious purposes of his sovereign 
 will. 
 
 I shall proceed to inquire, which of the two systems, 
 the supposed Evangelical, or the Unitarian, leaves a 
 creature who has sinned, and broken his maker's 
 laws, without a foundation on which he can stand at 
 the tribunal of his judge, and which of them is best 
 calculated to meet the necessities of fallen man. 
 
 According to the supposed Evangelical 6r Calvinis- 
 tic system, the great and glorious Author of all things, 
 who is represented to us in the Scriptures in terms 
 of the highest majesty, and at the same time of the 
 greatest simplicity, as a Being who is ONE and his 
 name ONE, as a Being infinitely and universally be- 
 nevolent, as the Father and the Friend of the whole 
 human race, is by the followers of Calvin described 
 to us as a compound Deity, a triune God, enshrined 
 in MYSTERY, and held up to us in characters, which 
 would compel us, if we believed them, to consider 
 him upon the whole, to be an unjust, malignant, and 
 cruel Divinity ; for by this system he is represented, 
 as having from all eternity predestinated the great
 
 415 
 
 mass of his intelligent creatures to most exquisite, 
 and never ending torments, which he foresaw before 
 he created them, and well knowing it, thought fit, 
 notwithstanding, to call them into existence ; as having 
 made our first parent Adam, and placed him in the 
 garden of Eden, in which was every thing calculated 
 to promote his happiness, and having there entered 
 into a covenant with him, which he knew he would 
 never fulfil, by virtue of which he, our first parent, en- 
 gaged on his part, for perfect obedience to all his ma- 
 ker's commandments, under the penalty of death, and 
 everlasting misery, to himself and all his posterity, if 
 he did not perform it ; and the Supreme Being pro- 
 mised him on his part, eternal life and happiness, as 
 a reward for his obedience and service. Such a co- 
 venant as this, I will venture to say, that no wise, or 
 good being would have entered into himself, or have 
 permitted a raw and inexperienced creature, whom 
 he had just created from the dust of the ground, to 
 have entered into on the other part, even for himself 
 only, much less for countless millions of his future 
 offspring, who were not then in existence, and con- 
 sequently could have had no knowledge, option, will, 
 or choice, whatsoever. 
 
 What should we say in a court of law or equity, of 
 a covenant made by a very inexperienced young man 
 on one side, for perfect and perpetual obedience, with 
 a person of mature age, and great wisdom and expe- 
 
 2
 
 416 
 
 rience, on the other side, by which the latter, in con- 
 sideration of such service, held up to the dazzled 
 imagination of the former, a bright and glittering 
 prize, namely eternal life and happiness, which he the 
 promiser, and he only, knew all the while, would 
 turn up a most dreadful blank, entailing death and 
 ruin upon the deluded wretch, who had unwarily 
 entered into this fatal contract with him, and upon 
 all his posterity, and eternal misery upon the great 
 majority, consisting of multitudes almost without 
 number, of the latter ?- What upright judge would 
 hesitate a moment to set it aside, as most fraudulent 
 and wicked? And who could avoid pronouncing, that 
 the poor inexperienced creature, who had been thus 
 tempted hastily to enter into it, had been completely 
 taken in ? 
 
 But, as if this were not sufficient, the Calvinistic 
 system represents an nfernal spirit, of extraordinary 
 power, subtlety, sagacity, and malignity, long prac- 
 tised in alj the arts of fraud and delusion, to have 
 been let loose upon our unhappy and inexperienced 
 ancestor, without any intimation that he was to be 
 exposed to the wily artifices of such an adversary; 
 and that this invisible agent, entering into or taking 
 the form of a serpent, commenced his infernal ma- 
 chinations, by tempting the wife of our great proge- 
 nitor, who must have been quite as raw and inex- 
 perienced a. being as himself, and probably still less
 
 417 
 
 firm, and less capable of resisting the artifices of such 
 a secret and unknown enemy. 
 
 This spirit of darkness is represented as having 
 been long at war with Omnipotence, and as having 
 entered into this world for the express purpose of de- 
 feating his intention, of making the human race 
 happy ; and he is further represented as having ac.. 
 tually succeeded, and as to the greater part of man - 
 kind, monstrous, and utterly incredible and irrational, 
 as the idea is, to have really got the better of the 
 Almighty, by bringing upon them irretrievable, and 
 everlasting ruin ; thus verifying the prediction which 
 our countryman Milton puts into his mouth, that 
 " he more than half perhaps would reign" ! ! ! 
 
 Would it not be a gross libel upon the Majesty on 
 High, to say, with the advocates of this system, that 
 he appointed our first parent a trustee for thousands 
 of millions of his descendants, and made him the de- 
 positary of their future happiness, when he knew from 
 the beginning, that he was utterly unfit for the trust, 
 and would upon the first temptation, be guilty of such 
 a breach of it, as would entail death and never-ending 
 misery, upon the greater part of them ? 
 
 What would be our feelings, even if we were not 
 parties concerned, for his unconscious and unfortunate 
 offspring, who could know nothing of the fatal en- 
 gagement thus ignorantly and inconsiderately entered 
 into on their behalf by their unhappy first parent, 
 which was to doom them to hopeless and everlasting
 
 418 
 
 woe, without any possibility of escape ? for they are 
 represented by this extraordinary system, as being in 
 consequence of a single act of disobedience on the 
 part of their great ancestor, introduced into the world 
 tainted with his sin, rotten to the very core, and wholly 
 unable to do any thing to extricate themselves from 
 this most lamentable condition, whilst he, who alone 
 can help them, chooses to extend his favour only to a 
 few, and leaves all the rest, that is, thousands of mil- 
 lions of his intelligent offspring, the work of his own 
 hands, without scruple to their melancholy and most 
 distressing fate. 
 
 Nor is this all, for the system holds him forth as 
 calling to these unhappy victims to look unto him 
 and be saved, to turn from their evil ways and live, 
 as willing that all men should be saved, that he sent 
 his son to be the Saviour of the world ; and his son, 
 as having died for ALL, and having commanded his 
 Gospel to be preached to every creature, which upon 
 their principles is the greatest mockery and delusion 
 that could have been practised, holding as they do, 
 that not a single person can obey the call, not one 
 human being avail himself of these gracious offers, 
 Unless he be previously elected, and irresistibly impel- 
 led to it by a superior power, which the great mass 
 of mankind are not to be. To call therefore upon 
 persons thus circumstanced, to work impossibilities, 
 is like calling upon the blind to see, the deaf to hear, 
 and the lame to run, though they are entirely without
 
 419 
 
 the power so to do, and are not to have it commu- 
 nicated to them : or calling upon a prisoner to quit 
 his dungeon, when we know that we ourselves have 
 caused every door to be locked upon him, and his 
 feet to be made fast in the stocks. 
 
 If such a Being as this, be not pure malignity, be- 
 cause he vouchsafes to save a few, who can help say- 
 ing that malignity is the predominant and prevailing 
 feature in his character ? The fabled divinity of an- 
 tiquity, who is stated to have devoured his own off- 
 spring, was mercy itself compared to this imaginary 
 monster of more modern times ; for such as were made 
 the victims of his cruelty by the former, were put out 
 of their pains at once, whilst the great mass of the de- 
 voted and miserable descendants of Adam, are, ac- 
 cording to the Calvinistic system, doomed to suffer 
 the most excruciating torments for ever and ever, 
 without hope, and without end. 
 
 The supposed sanguinary Divinity of ancient times 
 likewise, had a motive, such as it was, for his cruelties. 
 He believed an ancient prophecy, by which it was 
 foretold, that his kingdom should be overthrown, and 
 his authority destroyed by one of his own sons. But 
 the real God of us Christians, the Omnipotent and 
 Omniscient, blessed be his name, could have no such 
 motive. His throne is never for one moment in 
 danger; his designs can never be frustrated ; his coun- 
 sel that shall stand ; and he will do all his pleasure. 
 He knows every design against him before it is formed,
 
 420 
 
 i 
 
 and by a single exertion of his power can confound 
 the devices, and paralyse the efforts, of all his rebel- 
 lious subjects : nay, by the merely withholding for an 
 instant, the exercise of his mighty energies, in whom 
 they live, move, and have their being, he would in- 
 volve them in sudden destruction, and blot them for 
 ever out of existence. To fancy that a Being so tran- 
 scendently great and glorious as this, whose favourite 
 attribute too, is infinite benevolence, who represents 
 himself to us as love itself, can have predestinated a 
 vast majority of his rational offspring whom he created 
 with capacities for the enjoyment of happiness, to 
 everlasting misery, is in my judgement the greatest 
 absurdity that ever entered the human mind, and, as 
 I have observed already, a most gross libel upon him. 
 
 What should we say of a human father, who, if \rc 
 had the power, should thus treat his children ? what 
 of a human sovereign, who should act with such re- 
 fined and unexampled cruelty towards his subjects ; 
 should we not hold him up to public detestation, as 
 a most horrible and execrable tyrant ? Would fallen 
 creatures who had sinned and broken the laws of such 
 a being as this, have any foundation on which they 
 could stand at his tribunal ? Would not innumerable 
 multitudes of them, notwithstanding the supposed 
 atonement, be hurried from thence to everlasting tor- 
 ment ? Would this system, if it were true, be calcu- 
 lated to meet the wants and wishes of fallen man ? 
 Would not, on the contrary, the Gospel itself, instead
 
 421 
 
 of being, as its name imports and as it really is, "good 
 news" be the most melancholy piece of intelligence 
 that was ever published to the human race ? 
 
 According to the Calvinistic system also, the Su- 
 preme Father and Lord of all, presents himself to us 
 likewise in the character of a hard unfeeling creditors 
 who, though he knows that his unhappy debtors have 
 nothing to pay, will not abate an iota of his full de- 
 mand, but wrings to the last farthing of his debt out 
 of a third person, who offers to pay it for a few, leav- 
 ing all the rest to endure the horrors of perpetual im- 
 prisonment. 
 
 Upon this system too, his mistaken votaries deny 
 to him the power of pardoning offences committed 
 against himself, which is enjoyed by the meanest 
 earthly sovereigns, and justly considered as one of th'e 
 most valuable, as well as most amiable of all their 
 prerogatives, and pretend that he, the Almighty and 
 everlasting King of the Universe alone, cannot do it 
 without injustice, until full satisfaction has been made 
 to him, until the entire punishment merited by each 
 offence, has been inflicted upon, and borne by some- 
 body, and this they call mercy w\& forgiveness, when 
 nothing in fact has been forgiven, nothing left unpu- 
 nished ; but the punishment, which if imposed at all, 
 ought to have fallen upon the guilty, is inflicted upon 
 the innocent ; to the utter subversion of all justice 
 and example, of all the ends and designs of punish- 
 ment, and remains so, notwithstanding the innocent
 
 422 
 
 victim submits to it voluntarily. What should we 
 think of permitting a thief, or a murderer, to go un- 
 punished, because some honest man should think fit 
 to be transported, or hanged instead of him ? But the 
 supposed justice which requires, or allows all this, is 
 entirely a justice of their own making, analogous to 
 nothing which we find established among men, re- 
 sembling nothing which we find ascribed to the Su- 
 preme Being in the Scriptures. 
 
 Yet this is the golden Image which Nebuchadnez- 
 zar has set up, which, when we hear the sound of the 
 cornet, the flute, the harp, the sackbut, the psaltery, 
 the dulcimer, and all kinds of music, we are required 
 to fall down and worship. This is the God of Empe- 
 rors, Popes, Councils, Synods, and Assemblies of Di- 
 vines, to which they have contributed their several 
 parts, and these are the features of his character, and 
 the measures of his government. 
 
 But let us turn with horror from this grim Idol, 
 and his cruel and vindictive attributes, and contrast 
 with him, for it is a contrast, and a most striking and 
 happy one, the God of Holy Writ, the Supreme Au- 
 thor of the Universe, and the bestower of every good 
 and perfect gift, the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, to whom, and to whom alone, the latter 
 has commanded his followers to present their hum- 
 ble request is as the universal friend and Father of all. 
 The Scriptures speak of this transcendently great, and 
 infinitely benevolent Being, in such language as this ;
 
 '123 
 
 " Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found, call ye 
 upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake 
 his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and 
 let him return to Jehovah, and he will have mercy 
 upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly 
 pardon? Is. Iv. 7. Not a word ahout punishing them, 
 or any one else in their stead. It is sufficient for them 
 to forsake their evil ways and thoughts, and return to 
 him, to be abundantly PARDONED, which, if it means 
 any thing, means a free pardon to all intents and pur- 
 poses. Again, " I, even I, am he that blotleth out thy 
 transgressions for MINE OWN sake, and will not re~ 
 member thy sins," Is. xliii. 25. "His anger endureth 
 but for a moment," Ps. xxx. 5. "The Lord is mer- 
 ciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in 
 mercy. He will not always chide, neither will he keep 
 his anger^/br ever" Ps. ciii. 8. 9. "The Lord is gra- 
 cious, and/w// of compassion, slow to anger, and of 
 great mercy. The Lord is good to ALL, and his tender 
 mercies are over ALL his works." Ps. cxlv. 8, 9. 
 
 But what says the popular system, the creature of 
 philosophers, priests, and councils ? Not a word of 
 this is true. Instead of being plenteous in mercy, and 
 abounding in forgiveness, the Supreme Being forgives 
 no sins. He pardons no iniquities. Every offence 
 must be visited with its full punishment. His anger 
 endureth for ever, and will burn throughout all the 
 endless ages of eternity. He is not good to all, nor 
 are his tender mercies over all his works ; but on the
 
 424 
 
 contrary, to the great majority of his intelligent off- 
 spring, to thousands of millions of human beings, he 
 is not good, but full of wrath and fury for ever ; nor 
 are his tender mercies over them who constitute so 
 great a part of his works, nor are they ever intended 
 so to be ; so that it would have been better, infinitely 
 better for them, if he had never called them into ex- 
 istence : yet these are the doctrines palmed upon us 
 by the contrivance of men, as the doctrines of the 
 Holy Scriptures, and we are represented as making 
 ourselves wise above that which is written, because 
 we reject them with abhorrence, as libels upon our 
 great and merciful Creator ; because we find them as 
 contrary to Scripture, as they are to pure and unso- 
 phisticated reason. 
 
 The language of our Saviour Christ in the New 
 Testament, is to the very same effect as that of tire 
 Prophets in the Old, representing his Father and our 
 Father, his God and our God, to be a God full of 
 goodness and mercy, a God who actually forgives 
 transgressions and sins, and commands vs to be mer- 
 ciful, as he is merciful, to pray to him that he will 
 forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who 
 trespass against us, which we are not to do by re- 
 ceiving complete satisfaction for them from some one 
 else, for that would be no forgiveness at all ; and to 
 tell those who had offended us afterwards, that we had 
 forgiven them, would be downright hypocrisy and in- 
 sult. Our Lord plainly informs us that if we forgive
 
 425 
 
 men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also 
 forgive us. When asked what a man must do to in- 
 herit eternal life, he tells the inquirer at once, that he 
 must love the Lord his God with all his heart, with 
 all his soul, with all his mind, and with all his strength, 
 and his neighbour as himself, and does not trouble 
 him with any of the subtleties and refinements adopted 
 in later ages. If the doctrines of the infinite satisfac- 
 tion and atonement, had been essential and funda- 
 mental parts of the Gospel, so essential that the sal- 
 vation of mankind entirely depended upon them, as 
 they are represented to be by the Calvinists, would 
 not our blessed Lord have known it as well as they, 
 and would that great teacher whose office it was to 
 publish that Gospel to the world, and to inform man- 
 kind what they should believe and practise under it, 
 have been quite silent upon the subject as he has been, 
 for he never once mentions it ? Would he have in- 
 culcated again and again, many of the minor duties 
 of Christianity, and have left these essential and fun- 
 damental parts, without believing which, his followers 
 could not be saved, wholly untouched ? Was this his 
 practice, or the practice of any person who ever pro- 
 fessed to be the teacher of any important doctrine 
 whatever ? 
 
 The language of our Lord's Apostles is also in per- 
 fect unison with his own, and that of the Prophets 
 in the Old Testament, representing the Supreme Being 
 to be Love itself, 1 John, iv. 8; to be a God who will
 
 426 
 
 have all men to be saved, 1 Tim. ii. 4; and if HE 
 wills it, what shall oppose itself to Ids high will, who 
 is possessed of Almighty power to carry into effect 
 all his purposes, and infinite wisdom to accomplish 
 them in the best manner, and by the best means ? Has 
 he not declared of himself, " My counsel that shall 
 stand, and I will fulfil all my pleasure" ? Can any 
 thing prevent HIS sovereign will from receiving its 
 full and glorious consummation ? 
 
 In 1 Tim. iv. 10. we ve further informed that the 
 living God is the Saviour of ALL men, especially of 
 those that believe, shewing plainly, that he is the Sa- 
 viour of unbelievers, as well as of believers, but espe- 
 cially of the latter. Will any one contend, in contra- 
 diction to this, that the former will not at some time 
 or other, come to the knowledge of his truth, as he 
 says, 1 Tim. ii. 4, that all men shall, but that they 
 who are the great majority of men shall be ulti- 
 mately cast away and lost for ever ? 
 
 It is very remarkable too, that the first testimony 
 which was borne to our Lord as a divine messenger, 
 was by John the Baptist in these words, John i. 29. 
 " Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin 
 of the world," which no one was ever authorized to 
 contradict, by saying that he shall take away the sin 
 of only part of the world, though modern divines 
 say so without hesitation every day. 
 
 In addition to the above, if further proof be re- 
 quired, the Apostle Paul tells us expressly, that Christ
 
 427 
 
 died for all, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; that as in Adam //died, 
 *o in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. xv. 2*2 ; 
 and that this does not mean merely being raised to 
 life and consciousness, to be condemned to eternal 
 torment, he plainly shews in his Epistle to the Romans* 
 chap, v., where he states, that not as the offence, so 
 also is \\\zfree GIFT, "for if through the offence of one 
 the many," so is the original, "be dead, much more the 
 grace or favour of God, and the gift by grace, which 
 is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the 
 many," that is the very same many, the mass of man- 
 kind, who through the offence of one, had died. So 
 he says afterwards, "Therefore as by the offence of one, 
 judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, 
 even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
 upon all men unto justification of life;" the very same 
 all men upon whom judgment came to condemnation ; 
 for he continues, " As by one man's disobedience, the 
 many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, 
 shall the many be made righteous, that is the very 
 same many who had been made sinners, the mass of 
 mankind, shall at some time or other be made right- 
 eous. But how can this be, if they are to pass a whole 
 eternity in a state of sin, unrighteousness and enmity 
 to God, and of unutterable torments ? 
 
 The Apostle however does not stop here, for he 
 proceeds thus : " Moreover the law entered, that the 
 offence might abound ; but where sin abounded, grace
 
 428 
 
 did much more abound." Now where did sin abound 
 but amongst the grt'at body of mankind, the whole 
 human race ? Consequently, if grace is extended only 
 to a few of them, and the great majority are aban- 
 doned to eternal sin and misery, sin will have abounded 
 much more than grace. Where sin abounded, grace 
 will not have much more abounded, nor as much ; 
 because amongst the great majority, amongst thou- 
 sands of millions, where sin hath abounded, grace 
 will not have abounded, nor ever will abound at all. 
 
 But why, where sin had abounded, did grace much 
 more abound ? The Apostle's answer is, " that as sin 
 had reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
 through righteousness, unto eternal life, through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ;" so that, according to the 
 Apostle's account, where sin had abounded, which 
 was amongst all men, grace much more abounded, 
 that as sin had reigned unto death, which was over 
 all men, even so might grace reign, which must in 
 like manner mean over all men, unto eternal life by 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ; meaning that all men should 
 in the end, by the grace or favour of God, receive 
 eternal life by, or through the means of, Jesus Christ. 
 In like manner, the Apostle, speaking of the Israelites, 
 says, Rom. xi. 32, " For God hath concluded them 
 all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all" 
 clearly shewing that God designs to have mercy upon 
 all Israel without any exception ; for though all are
 
 429 
 
 concluded under unbelief, yet to the very same all, 
 mercy is to be extended. 
 
 There is undoubtedly to be a second death, a state 
 of punishment for the disobedient and impenitent, 
 who have not been reconciled to God in this world. 
 But are they always to remain enemies ? Is their pu- 
 nishment never to produce any salutary effect upon 
 them ? Is it to be wholly vindictive and not cor- 
 rectional ; and are they never to be released from it, 
 so that the second death shall last for ever ? If that 
 were the case, it would not only contradict what the 
 Apostle has said above, but also what he tells us in 
 his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xv. 21 28, 
 where he says, " For since by man came death, by man 
 came also the resurrection from the dead ; for as in 
 Adam all died, even so in Christ, shall all be made 
 alive ; but every man in his own order, Christ the 
 first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his 
 coming : Afterwards cometh the end, when he shall 
 have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Fa- 
 ther, when he shall have destroyed all rule, and all 
 authority, and power ; for he must reign, till he hath 
 put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy shall 
 be destroyed, that is death, for he hath put all things 
 under his feet. But when he saith all things are put 
 under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who did 
 put all things under him; and when all things shall 
 be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also him-
 
 430 
 
 self be subject unto him that subjected all things to 
 him, that God may he all in all." 
 
 From this passage it appears that Christ shall reign 
 till he shall have destroyed all rule, and all authority 
 and power that opposes him, till he shall have put 
 under his feet, not destroyed, all enemies, till all 
 things shall have been subjected to him, till death, the 
 LAST enemy, shall have been destroyed, for it appears 
 that that enemy, and that enemy only, is to be de- 
 stroyed, that then our Lord is to deliver up the king- 
 dom to God, 7&> ?tea, even the Father, and to be sub- 
 ject to him who subjected all things to him, that God, 
 6 so$ again, meaning the Father, not the Trinity, 
 nor the Father, Son and Spirit, may be all in all. 
 
 But how can this be true, if there are to be thou- 
 sands of millions of intelligent beings in a state of sin, 
 rebellion, and enmity against God, for ever and ever? 
 How can death be the last enemy, or how can the 
 last enemy ever be destroyed, when there are to be, 
 according to the Calvinistic system, so many millions 
 of other enemies living, and continuing in enmity to 
 God to all eternity ? How can God ever be all in all, 
 if there are to be so many millions of obdurate and 
 enraged rebels, reviling him and cursing him for ever? 
 If this were so, sin and death would last for ever, 
 death would never be destroyed, nor would moral evil 
 ever be annihilated, but would continue for ever to 
 disfigure the works of God, and shew that his inten.
 
 tions have been in great part frustrated, and that his 
 loving kindness and tender mercies are not, as he has 
 declared, over all his works. 
 
 Is it not then a more rational and consistent inter- 
 pretation of this passage, that after the resurrection 
 there will be a death, which is called elsewhere the 
 second death, for the punishment of those, who hav- 
 ing quitted the present state impenitent and nnre- 
 formed, will rise again with the same vicious and re- 
 bellious habits and propensities, as they were under 
 the dominion of in this world, and will require a long 
 and severe course of discipline, to subdue and reform 
 them, and so fully to impress their minds with the 
 wickedness, folly, and dreadful consequences, of acting 
 in disobedience to the commandments of God, their 
 Father and their Friend, as to prevent them from ever 
 returning to their evil practices ; that Christ shall reign, 
 till by the salutary, though severe measures of his ad- 
 ministration, they shall all be completely subdued, and 
 from enemies be converted into friends, and shall all 
 have benefited by his mission ; and that when all this 
 shall have been accomplished, when the second death 
 shall have answered all its purposes, and have left no 
 other enemy existing, then that last enemy shall be 
 destroyed, shall be finally put an end to, and Christ 
 himself, having fulfilled all the objects of his mission, 
 having died for all, and saved all, having, as it has 
 been said of him, restored all things, shall deliver up 
 
 2r
 
 432 
 
 the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may 
 be all in all, and universal goodness, virtue, and hap- 
 piness prevail for ever ? 
 
 What a glorious and happy consummation will this 
 be ! How fully will it reconcile the ways of God to 
 man, and convince us that all his attributes are in per- 
 fect unison with each other ! Under this view of the 
 Divine government, the Gospel is indeed good news 
 to all mankind. It is the religion, and the only reli- 
 gion, that can be universal ; the religion, and the only 
 religion, which, to use your own words, gives to a 
 creature who has sinned and broken his Maker's laws, 
 a foundation on which he can stand at the tribunal of 
 his judge ; the religion, and the only religion, which 
 can meet the necessities of fallen man, for it meets 
 and completely provides for the necessities of them 
 all, and is intended ultimately to make them all su- 
 premely and everlastingly happy. 
 
 It is the most beautiful, as well as beneficent system, 
 that the warmest wishes of mankind could ever have 
 aspired to, could they have formed a conception of it, 
 before it descended from Him who is the Father of 
 lights, and the giver of every good and perfect gift- 
 Its nature and character designate it as having ema- 
 nated from Him whose most distinguished attribute is 
 universal benevolence, who delights to represent him- 
 self as Love itself, as the Father and Fiiend of all his 
 rational offspring. How delightful is it to consider
 
 433 
 
 ourselves as living under the administration of such 
 a glorious and beneficent Sovereign as this, who is 
 continually pouring forth upon us a rich profusion of 
 his bounties, who crowneth us with loving kindness 
 and tender mercies, who is always watching over us 
 for our good, and never even punishes us but for our 
 own benefit ! Whilst the warm glow of gratitude and 
 devotion dilates our breasts, we can repose all our 
 cares upon him who careth for us ; and if any who 
 are at present very near and dear to us, should wan- 
 der from his ways, and notwithstanding our most ar- 
 dent wishes and anxious endeavours to bring them 
 back again to God and virtue, by going out of this 
 world unreformed, render themselves the subjects of 
 punishment in a future state, the desolating sense of 
 despair on their account, which is the most distressing 
 of all feelings, which we cannot experience for a mo- 
 ment without misery, can never invade our bosoms, 
 because we know that every one of them shall at last, 
 each in his own order, be made perfect through suf- 
 ferings, and be advanced to a state of never-ending 
 felicity, which will make the greatest sufferer of them 
 all rejoice with joy unspeakable, that this gracious 
 Creator, the Supreme Governor of the Universe, was 
 pleased to call him into existence ; that he might 
 finally make him a partaker of a state of happiness, 
 compared with which, the previous misery inflicted 
 upon him for his own benefit and that of others, will 
 be as nothing, but be swallowed up and lost in the
 
 434 
 
 enjoyment of the glories of that heavenly kingdom, 
 into which all shall have been admitted, and in which 
 God will be all among all. 
 
 Is it to be wondered at, then, that we who entertain 
 these views of the character and government of the 
 Supreme Being, and of his gracious designs towards 
 ourselves and our fellow men, should bind them to 
 our hearts, and cherish them as heavenly treasures ; 
 that they should be present to us when we lie down, 
 and when we rise up, sweetening the cup of life and 
 filling our minds continually with the highest grati- 
 tude, veneration, and love, for him who hath promised 
 to bestow such invaluable benefits upon us ? 
 
 Now unto him the blessed and only potentate, the 
 King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath im- 
 mortality, dwelling in light inaccessible, whom no 
 man hath seen, or can see, to Him be honour and 
 dominion for ever. 
 
 Having brought this long letter to a conclusion, I 
 subscribe myself once more, sincerely wishing you 
 every happiness, 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Yours most truly.
 
 TEXTS 
 
 COMMENTED UPON, EXPLAINED, OR CITED. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Title 293 
 
 Ch.3.v.l5 119 
 
 17. 5 203 
 
 32. 28 32 
 
 30 145 
 
 33. 20 Ib. 
 
 35.7 Ib. 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 Title 293 
 
 7, 1 116 
 
 14. 31 .... 138,259 
 
 17, 15 32, 135 
 
 20. 2 . 138 
 
 2). 5,6 116, 130 
 
 22. 8, 9, 28 Ib. 
 
 31. 2 32 
 
 32. 7 138 
 
 33. 1 Ib. 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Title 293 
 
 10. 3 192 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 Title 293 
 
 13. Ifi 331 
 
 16. 13 133 
 
 20. 12 192 
 
 26. 8 145 
 
 31. 16 ... 191 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 Title . 293 
 
 Page. 
 
 Ch. 4.^.35,39 155 
 
 5. 6 138 
 
 (i. 4 155 
 
 18. 15, 18 70 
 
 28. 10 360 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 16. 7, 11, 17 206 
 
 17. 1 
 19. 1 
 
 1. 2 
 
 RUTH. 
 
 353 
 Ib. 
 
 145 
 
 I. SAMUEL. 
 
 2. 12 ... . 138 
 
 25 130 
 
 4. 1 4 
 
 12. 18 259 
 
 20. 12 170 
 
 II. SAMUEL. 
 
 2. 17 353 
 
 18 Ib. 
 
 5. 16 144 
 
 I. KINGS. 
 
 18. 40 32, 133 
 
 21. 13 4 
 
 II. KINGS. 
 
 2. 9, 15 366 
 
 I. CHRONICLES. 
 
 2. 25 . 135
 
 436 
 
 Page. 
 
 C/i.8.u.27 133 
 
 12. 5 144 
 
 12. 20 145 
 
 24. 5 131 
 
 29. 20 138, 259 
 
 II. CHRONICLES. 
 
 22. 11 135 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 7. 7 135 
 
 11. 7 ........ 135, 145 
 
 JOB. 
 
 1. 21 -.. 96 
 
 11. 12 215 
 
 32. 2 145 
 
 40. 15 215 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 20. 1,7 ..., 254 
 
 30. 5 423 
 
 33. 6 30 
 
 50. 6 377, 380. 
 
 69. 22 191 
 
 73. 26 171 
 
 82. 6 206 
 
 84. 9, 11 172 
 
 92. 15 Ib. 
 
 103. 8,9 423 
 
 145. 8, 9 Ib. 
 
 PROVERBS. 
 8. 14 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 12. 7 
 
 368 
 
 96 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 1. 1" 
 
 4. 1 
 
 6. 112 .... 
 
 9 '. . . 
 
 135 
 
 359 
 
 324 
 
 329 
 
 7. .. 49, 54,' 142, 334 
 6 . 144 
 
 Page. 
 
 Ch. 7..14 123, 126, 
 
 329, 342 
 8 142,339 
 
 8. 8 339 
 
 13 191, 195 
 
 14 192, 195 
 
 9. 6 127 
 
 22. 20 145 
 
 28. 16 191,195 
 
 40. 18 155 
 
 40. 25 Ib. 
 
 43. 10, 11 Ib. 
 
 25 423 
 
 44. 6 156 
 
 8 Ib. 
 
 45. 6 Ib. 
 
 18 Ib. 
 
 21,22 Ib. 
 
 23 377, 380 
 
 24,25 137 
 
 46. 9, 10 156 
 
 53. 1 .324 
 
 12 325 
 
 55. 7 423 
 
 2 333 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 23. 5 141 
 
 6,7 137 
 
 32. 18 128 
 
 33. 15, 16 140 
 
 16 135 
 
 42. 1 133 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 2. 1 383 
 
 II. ESDRAS. 
 7. 3 131 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 Title 292 
 
 4049,289 
 
 1. 18 ., . 344
 
 43; 
 
 Page. 
 
 Cfc.3.t>.2 263 JOHN. 
 
 Ch.l.v.l 30,34, 159 
 
 o. 6, 9 106 a 04 
 
 10.3 359 _i ;;;;;;;;;:: { 
 
 ~ ?S 6 *% 353, 399 
 
 , O?Q - 14 -.38,40,55,66, 
 
 16. 15 2/8 OKI OKO 
 
 19.28 85 . lg ' fs 
 
 20. 2023 .... 226, 233 OQ 4 ^ 
 
 90 117 ~ zy 4 ^ 
 
 2 T 19 2Q -31,33 296 
 
 *7 i 9 oS 45.... 124,290,291 
 
 5H- > OOU Q 1 Q OR QQ7 QQO 
 
 . _ _. ftfi 9qi 5. 10 ' yo, >y/,t)yo 
 
 z4. Jo .... /i oo, .sol, ifi 17 *?4 IQ^ 
 
 o 7 A o 7fi 1O,'I/,0 ISO 
 
 d/u, d/o 4 24 404 
 
 25. 41 86 HI 
 
 26. 53 212 8-20" 46 
 
 .28. 19,20 .... 243,253 _ jjj ' 202 
 
 22 .'.'.' ."262, 3 7 7, 381 
 MARK. - 22, 23 97 
 
 S 20 21 2Q1 -26,27 .. 17,99,202 
 
 o. 4(j, <ii tyi 26 28 30 150 
 
 13. 32 .... 71 86, 370, 97 ono QQI ooo 
 
 373,376 -27.... 202,381,3^ 
 
 \l'l\ $ ~30 .... 17,56,100, 
 
 10. 04 lOO nno 070 
 
 Ifi 1^ 97ft ^JUZ, O/O 
 
 6. 42 124 
 
 y 51,56,58 398 
 
 7. 4, 7 93 
 
 LUKE. 5 291,311 
 
 40-49,290 ~ 16 57,202,346 
 
 347 
 
 1.5 309,353 27 301 
 
 35 344 8.28 57,379 
 
 36 309 40 56 
 
 2. 15 317 56 203,324 
 
 3.23,38 299 10.18 14 
 
 9.26 261 2736 .... 1,8,22 
 
 10.21 168 27,67,161,187 
 
 11.2 103 30 104,234 
 
 16.1927 357 33 153 
 
 18. 11, 13 168 34... 116,128 
 
 20.23 100 34,35.... 129,161, 
 
 38 203 207 
 
 43 5760 36 26, 27, 188 
 
 22.3 359 12.3741 323
 
 Page. 
 
 Ch. 12. u. 49,5.0.... 57,202 Ch. 19.r.5, 6 249 
 
 14.10 .... 17,56,202, 3 , 255 
 
 355,378 37 175 
 
 - 2^:::: 89," 104, 233 ROMANS. 
 
 16. 13 362,367 2. 16 , 381 
 
 28 94,97 4. 17 203 
 
 17. 13 232 5. 10 186 
 
 3 87,384,390 10,11 410 
 
 5 29,202 15,18,19,20 .. 427 
 
 11.... 5,12,89,104 21 428 
 
 12 204 6.3 254 
 
 18 6,92,97 7. 17,20 367 
 
 20... 13,90 8.3,31,32 186 
 
 21 6,90,104 9.5 172 
 
 22 90,104 23 191 
 
 23 6 31,32 194 
 
 25... 93 33 195 
 
 20. 28 166 11. 9 191 
 
 30,31 169 32 428 
 
 14. 10, 12 .... 377,380 
 
 ACTS - I. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 1. 7 117 1. 2 359 
 
 23 359 1215 255 
 
 2. 4 364 2. 2 370 
 
 16,17,32,38.. Ib. 3 353 
 
 22, 32, 33 185 1 1 65, 367, 372 
 
 30 303 12 372 
 
 36 393 3. 3, 4 256 
 
 38 ........ 248, 254 16 367 
 
 41 251 6.2,3 85 
 
 3. 26 186 8. 4, 6 .... 87, 391, 396 
 
 4. 2 389 10. 2 255 
 
 18 360 11.3 161 
 
 36 359 15.4 427 
 
 6. 11,13,14 154 2128 429 
 
 7. 19 389 24 396 
 
 59 356 24, 25, 28 403 
 
 8.16 250,254 24,28 224 
 
 9. 14 359 27 378, 395 
 
 10. 38 365, 366 27, 28 225 
 
 48 249, 254 16. 18 367 
 
 17. 30, 31.. 77, 380,381 . CORINTHIANS. 
 
 19.15.. . 252,254 5.14,15 427
 
 439 
 
 Page. 
 Ch.S.v. 19 142 
 
 12. 8 358 
 
 13. 14.... 264,268,360 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 3. 27 254 
 
 6. 18 367 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 3. 10 370, 372 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 2 198,204 
 
 1 266* 
 
 311 205 
 
 6 214,217 
 
 68 207 
 
 911 393 
 
 3. 10 266 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 3. 16 367 
 
 II. THESSALONIANS. 
 2. 4 109 
 
 I. TIMOTHY. 
 
 2. 4 426 
 
 4. 10 Ib. 
 
 5.21 260 
 
 II. TIMOTHY. 
 
 1. 5 367 
 
 14 Ib. 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 2. 13 174 
 
 3. 4 . 180 
 
 PHILEMON. 
 1. 10 . 
 
 67 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 1. 1,2.... 3, 157,387, 
 
 404 
 8 170 
 
 2. 2 . 352 
 
 Page. 
 Ch. 2.v.7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 
 
 16 350 
 
 7,9,17 352 
 
 10 378 
 
 11, 16 353 
 
 13 354 
 
 16 345,347 
 
 17.... 349,351,353, 
 
 378 
 5. 8 . 378 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 2. 7 
 
 360 
 
 I. PETER. 
 
 1.3 67 
 
 2. 5,8 191 
 
 6 195 
 
 II. PETER. 
 1.1 174, 179 
 
 2 179 
 
 4 102 
 
 3. 8 203 
 
 I. JOHN. 
 2. 20 37, 149 
 
 4. 616 183 
 
 8 425 
 
 5. 7 231, 
 
 Adv. to 4th Letter. 
 5. 20 . . . 388 
 
 II. JOHN. 
 
 7. 
 
 389 
 
 REVELATIONS. 
 
 1. 4 264,266, 
 
 1 1 Adv. to 4th Letter. 
 
 20 267 
 
 2. 14 191, 194 
 
 3. 1 267 
 
 6. 10 167 
 
 13. 8 203 
 
 J8. 4 168 
 
 19. 10 . , 161 
 
 THE EXD.
 
 Richard Taylor, Printer, 
 Shoe- Lane, London.
 
 A nn 
 
 u 076 165 o
 
 
 v.- 
 
 *% 
 
 ~<FV 
 
 *(,' ' 
 
 , . 1 1 . . . 
 
 
 .