senses above stated, is not, in our opinion, contrary to the Scriptures, as our brethren have asserted.

And first, we shall demonstrate from the Scriptures, that there is one person, or intelligent being, who alone is God, supreme, almighty, and eternal; and that this one person is the Father, or, as he is sometimes called, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is ONE Lord." "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." "Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." "Thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most High over all the earth." "And the scribe said unto him; well, Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is ONE God, and there is none other but HE."* In these passages, to which many others might be added, the personal pronouns, I, thou, me, he, him, prove beyond contradiction, that God is one; that is, one being, person, or essence, and that he is distinguished from all other beings, persons, or essences. If God be more persons than one, the Sacred Scriptures exhibit a continued grammatical impropriety almost from beginning to end, which would be ridiculous, if not impious to suppose. When God speaks to men, he must always be understood to speak after the manner of men, and when a pronoun signifying a single person is used, it can never mean a plurality of persons. Besides, it is an absurdity and a perversion of language, to affirm, that one God can ever mean more than one person. It might as well be said, that one man means several men, one angel several angels, as to assert, that one God means several divine persons.

For the texts here quoted, and others of a similar kind, see Deut. vi. 4. Exod. xx. 2. Isai. xliv. 6, 8. Ps. Ixxxiii. 18. Mat.

xix. 16, 17. Mark xii. 32:

Having thus proved, that God is one person, or being, we shall next proceed to show, that the Father is that one person, and that the Godhead is restricted to him alone. "Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing; it is my Father, that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that he is your God." "Jesus knowing, that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God." "At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father." "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." "Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." The introductory addresses, like the one last quoted, are numerous in the epistles, and it is observable, that the Holy Ghost is never mentioned with the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. And, indeed, in all the quotations and references above, it must be obvious to the most superficial observer, how great is the difference between the style and mode of speaking of the apostles, and those of trinitarians. The language of trinitarians is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; but the language of the inspired apostles is God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no such expression, as God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, to be found in all the New Testament; but had the apostles known, that our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, were each God equal with the

Thes.

* John viii. 54,-xiii. 3.—xvi. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.-xx. 17. iii. 11. Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 Cor. i, 1, 2, 3, 4. Gal. i; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Ephes. i. 1, 2, S. 1 Pet. i. 1, 2, 3.

Father, would they not have declared the same? These are improvements in divinity for which we are indebted to more modern times.

From what has been said, it may safely be inferred, that we do not contradict the Scriptures by denying, that God is three persons, and asserting, that he is one person, or being only. Having refuted the charge of contradicting the Scriptures in denying the trinity, it might supersede the necessity of proving, that there is no such contradiction in denying, that Jesus Christ is truly, really, and properly God. For if the Father is the Supreme God, it is impossible, that any other being can be such in the same sense; and whoever can prove, in addition to this, that Jesus Christ is truly, really, and properly God, in the same sense as the Father, will prove, that there are two Gods, which is contrary to the christian religion. To strengthen our position we will proceed to adduce further testimony.

[These proofs, by which it is established, that Jesus Christ was derived from the Father, and subordinate to him, we must reserve for the next number.]

On the theolo

Ninth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller. gical Sentiments of Newton, Locke, and Watts.

SIR,

In the closing remarks of your Letter, strong disapprobation is expressed, that unitarians should presume to rank Newton, Locke and Watts, among their numbers. You' intimate a belief, that in using this freed om with the two former, "those illustrious men are treated, with great injustice;" and "against placing the pious, the heavenly-minded Watts in such company, you feel

constrained to enter your solemn protest." As I had enumerated these men among others, who were not believers in the trinity, and as you have been so prompt to question the accuracy, and even the justice of this enumeration, I propose to devote a few words to a consideration of this topic.

It may be premised, that unitarians do not recur to great names as affording any proof of the truth of their opinions. Error is not confined to the ignorant and unwise, nor is infallibility the prerogative of greatness. In religion we look for proof nowhere but in the Scriptures. The authority of great names ought, doubtless, to have its weight, not in convincing us in opposition to the word of God, but in confirming us in the conclusions to which we have come by a careful inquiry. Justice to ourselves, as well as to the cause we support, compels us to recur often to the names of distinguished unitarians. It is among the delights of our adversaries to impress it on the public mind, that our insignificance must necessarily prove us heretics; that our opinions are too novel to be true; and that the voice of all the learned, and wise, and good, speaks loudly against us. This string is harped upon incessantly. No matter how false and discordant its notes, so long as their tone is sufficiently high, and they produce the desired effect on the multitude. Prejudices grow out of these errors. We desire to lessen the evil by removing the cause. We wish our brethren to be enlightened, to know the truth, and to have as few occasions as possible for uncharitableness and reproach. We are influenced by a double motive, therefore, in referring to distinguished names; first, the natural desire of showing that our faith has been embraced and supported by wise and excellent men; and secondly, the hope of softening the

roughness, and tempering the violence of those, who indulge in a license of obloquy and disparagement, which, we are willing to believe, is more the result of ignorance, than of a wicked disposition.

Let it be further observed, that in the cases of Newton and Locke, the labour of proof belongs to trinitarians. These men have always been classed with unitarians; they have been perpetually quoted on that side. of the question, nor have I ever heard of their authority being brought forward in favour of the trinity, or even of orthodoxy. Prove from their writings, or from the writings of their cotemporaries, or from any well established facts, that they were trinitarians, and the point will be settled. The persons, who manifest so lively a concern for what they profess to deem the injured reputation of these great men, have exhibited no proof to this effect. Until this be done, Newton and Locke must be considered unitarians, as they always have been. I am not disposed, however, to decline an investigation of some of the positive evidences of the fact. The inquiry must necessarily be confined to a narrow space.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the first, who formally engaged in proving the spuriousness of the famous text of the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John v. 7; and also in showing that the received reading of 1 Tim. iii 16, is a corruption.* This subject was discussed in two letters

* In regard to 1 Tim. iii. 16, Newton was of the same opinion as Dr. Samuel Clarke. Instead of God manifest in the flesh, he believed the true reading to be, He who, or that which was manifest in the flesh "All the old versions," says Dr. Clarke, "have qui or quod. And all the ancient Fathers, though the copies of many of them have it now in the text itself, eos, Deus, yet from the tenour of their comments upon it, and from their never citing it in the Arian controversy, it appears they always read it qui or quod,” Scripture