mental, since I have shown before that all fundamental articles of faith are so clearly and distinctly revealed, as that honest men of the lowest degree of understanding cannot fail of the knowledge of them. Upon the supposition of the falsehood of the Unitarian doctrine, it cannot, I think, with any modesty be denied, but that in what the patrons of it offer against the orthodox exposition of texts of Scripture, and in favour of their own opinion, there is somewhat plausible, and such puzzling difficulties as persons of an ordinary capacity cannot solve; because the solution of them depends upon criticism, and understanding in some measure the original languages, and the different acceptation of words and phrases, which such are no competent judges of. So that it is an easy matter for one who believes the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and is a perfect master of his scheme, to seduce them from the truth, or at least unsettle and unhinge their minds. And if it should so happen, it would be very rash and censorious to ascribe it to a vicious temper, or to say that they had not a sincere love of truth, were not serious and diligent, according to their capacity and leisure, in their searches after it, and earnest and importunate with God to direct and lead them into it.

But, further, let us see of what particular texts this proposition, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the one God, can be supposed to be an undeniable consequence. Is it a consequence of those texts which speak of the Father as the only true

God, the alone supreme and self-existent being *? The Unitarians will tell us that the contrary, namely, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are not the one supreme God, seems to be a necessary consequence from these; because if the Father, that is, the first person of the Trinity, only be true God in the highest sense, the self-existent being, and original cause of all things; the Son and Spirit not being the Father, cannot be the one only living and true God. Or is it a consequence from the text which speaks of the Father alone as knowing the precise time of the destruction of Jerusalem +, and consequently as being alone strictly and properly omniscient? Or is the supreme deity of the Son deducible from that place which speaks of him as inferior and in subjection to the Father in his highest nature, namely, before his incarnation, and so before the existence of the human soul t? Or from those which seem to imply that it was the Logos, or divine word himself, who was abased and suffered§? Natural reason would prompt us to think the contrary, since the Supreme Being is and must be impassible, because of the necessary and immutable happiness of his nature. Or is the equality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and Son inferred from his being so often represented as ministering to both of them? which among men, I know is ever a mark of subordination and inferiority. I believe

John xvii. 3. 1 Cor. viii.6. § John xvii. 5. Acts xx. 28. Rev. i. 17, 18.

+ Matt. xxiv. 36.

Psa. xl. 8.

Col. i. 14, 15. 2 Cor. viii. 9.

we must not look here for this necessary and unavoidable consequence.

Let us see, then, what other text will afford it. Particularly, whether it follows that Christ is most high God from what St. Paul says of him, "who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Now, it cannot be a necessary consequence from this text, because it is granted, and I think proved by many learned men who have written on this subject, that the words ought not to be rendered thought it not robbery, but did not arrogate to himself, or covet to be equal with God+. And it is disputable at least, whether it ought not to be translated like God, since equality is somewhat absolute; whereas the word "ros, as Mr. Emlyn observest, admits of degrees. Neither, I think, is there an absolute necessity of concluding it from what our Saviour says, "I and my Father are one§;" because the Unitarian exposition of these words of a unity of consent and agreement, must be allowed to bid as fair for being the true, as the Trinitarian interpretation of them, namely, of unity of nature and essence, since St. John himself has used the word in the former sense, and, more than so, has plainly determined that this is

* Phil. ii. 6.

See particularly Dr. Whitby on the place, and Dr. Bennet's answer to Dr. Clarke.

True Narrative of the Proceedings of Dissenting Ministers at Dublin against Mr. Thomas Emlyn, page 40.

§ John x. 30.

the nature of that unity that there is between the Father and the Son*; whereas the latter is a dark, mysterious, metaphysical interpretation, which neither the nature of things nor the analogy of Scripture makes necessary, nor the use of the phrase in that sense in other places of the New Testament. Or, finally, is the supreme and independent deity of Christ a consequence of these words of St. Paul, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evert."? If it be a just, it cannot be so plain and unavoidable a consequence, as every honest man must see; because the title God is attributed to inferior beings, angels and magistrates. And the same Apostle hath asserted, that though Christ be God over all, yet it is manifest-that is, to the reason and common sense of mankind,—"that he is excepted who did put all things under him ‡," or made him God and Lord over all. I may add to this, that it is a matter of nice debate whether the words ought to be read as in our translation, or as a doxology to the Father, thus, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God be blessed for ever§."

I am at a loss to think what the passages of Scripture are, from whence it will apparently and undeniably follow, beyond the possibility of a plausible exception, that the Holy Ghost is most

+ Rom. ix. 5.

* John xvii. 11. 1 Cor. xv. 27. § Whoever has a mind to see what may be said for this latter reading, may consult Mr. Whiston's Primitive Christianity, vol. iv..

high God. And I believe I may spare the pains of looking for them, without giving much offence, since there are very few who seem over fond of entering upon that argument.

Upon the whole, it is not expressly asserted in Scripture, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are the one supreme God; and we have seen that it is not a necessary and unavoidable consequence from Scripture premises, that it is not a consequence so unavoidable as that every sincere and impartial man must see it; because the Unitarians, who do not see it, many of whom are men of unquestionable learning and judgement, have given the world as good proofs of their impartiality and integrity as can reasonably be desired; and consequently it cannot be a fundamental, since every fundamental doctrine must be so clearly revealed as to be ob-. vious, not only to the wise and learned, but even to vulgar understandings.

I would add, before I close this head, that that proposition, There are three somewhats, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are yet but one God, seems to me impossible to be true in any sense. For whatever is, is either a being of itself, or an attribute, mode or relation of being. To say that by three somewhats are meant three attributes only, is to make three attributes to be the whole divine nature with all its attributes, which is a contradiction; and no reason can be assigned why every attribute of God should not be a distinct person, as well as these three, be they self-existence, or wisdom, or power,