hiftory, that the common people, for whose use the books of the New Teftament were written, faw nothing in them of the doctrines of the pre-existence or divinity of Chrift, which many perfons of this day are fo confident that they fee in them. For the right understanding of these particular texts, I must refer my readers to the writings of Mr. Lindfey, and to a small tract which I published, entitled, Illuftrations of particular paffages of Scripture.

Why was not the doctrine of the trinity : taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Teftament at least, as the doctrine of the divine unity is taught in both the Old and New Teftaments, if it be a truth? And why is the doctrine of the unity always delivered in fo unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of a trinity, to prevent any mistake with refpect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechifms, creeds, and difcourfes on the fubject? For it cannot be denied but that the doctrine of the trinity looks fo like an infringement of that of the unity (on which the greateft poffible

ftrefs is always laid in the fcriptures) that it required to be at leaft hinted at, if not well defined and explained, when the divine unity was fpoken of. Divines are content, however, to build fo strange and inexplicable a doctrine as that of the trinity upon mere inferences from cafual expreffions, and cannot pretend, to one clear, exprefs, and unequivocal leffon on the subject.

There are many, very many, paffages of fcripture; which inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity in the clearest and ftrongest manner. Let one fuch paffage be produced in favour of the trinity. And why should we believe things fo mysterious without the clearest and most exprefs evidence.

There is also another confideration which I would recommend to those who maintain that Chrift is either God, or the maker of the world under God. It is this: The manner in which our Lord fpeaks of himself, and of the power by which he worked miracles, is inconfiftent, according to the common conftruction of language,

one God, and that they were understood to do fo by thofe perfons for whose use the books were written.

If we confult Mofes's account of the creation, we fhall find that he makes no mention of more than one God, who made the heavens and the earth, who fupplied the earth with plants and animals, and who alfo formed man. The plural number, indeed, is made ufe of when God is reprefented as faying, Gen. i. 26. Let us make man; but that this is mere phraseology, is evident from its being faid immediately after, in the fingular number, v. 27. God created man in his own image, so that the creator was still one being. Alfo, in the account of the building of the tower of Babel, we read, Gen xi. 7, that God faid let us go down, and there confound their language; but we find, in the very next verfe; that it was one being only who actually effected this.

In all the intercourfe of God with Adam, Noah, and the other partriarchs, no mention is made of more than one being who addreffed them under that character.

The

name by which he is diftinguished is sometimes Jehovah, and at other times the God of Abraham, &c. but no doubt can be entertained, that this was the fame being who is first mentioned under the general title of God, and to whom the making of the heavens and the earth is afcribed.

Frequent mention is made in the scriptures of angels, who sometimes speak in the name of God, but then they are always reprefented as the creatures and the fervants of God. It is even doubtful whether, in fome cafes, what are called angels, and had the form of men, who even walked, and fpake, &c. like men, were any thing more than temporary appearances, and no permanent beings; the mere organs of the deity, used for the purpose of making himself known and understood by his creatures. On no account, however, can these angels be confidered as Gods, rivals of the supreme being, or of the fame rank with him.

The most express declarations concerning the unity of God, and of the importance of the belief of it, are frequent in the Old Teftament. The first commandment is,

with the idea of his being poffeffed of any proper power of his own, more than other men have.

If Chrift was the maker of the world, and if, in the creation of it, he exerted no power but what properly belonged to himfelf, and what was as much bis own, as the power of Speaking, or walking belongs to man (though depending ultimately upon that fupreme power, in which we all live, and move, and have our being) he could not, with any propriety, and without knowing that he must be mifunderstood, have faid that of himself he could do nothing, that the words which he spake were not his own, and that the Father within him did the works. For if any ordinary man, doing what other men ufually do, fhould apply this language to himself, and fay that it was not be that fpake or acted, but God who fpake and acted by him, and that otherwife he was not capable of fo fpeaking or acting at all, we fhould not fcruple to say that his language was either fophiftical, or else downright falfe or blafphemous.