rowed but little light from philosophy, should imagine he reads it there." I replied: "So I own the case did appear to myself formerly. But as I read them now, the Scriptures do not seem to teach any such doctrine, but, in the plainest of all language, such as the most unlettered Christian must understand, they uniformly and emphatically teach the contrary doctrine, viz. that the Father is the only true God, and Christ the creature, the messenger, and the servant of that God.

"Without entering particularly into the argument at present, I appeal to the general tenor of the Scriptures, in which God and Christ are constantly mentioned as beings, or persons, of a quite different rank, much more so than man and beast. They are never once confounded; and in no sense whatever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God in all the New Testament. I beg my candid antagonist only to read over the few following plain passages, and let him say, if he does not find great difficulty in accommodating them to his system; and these are only a few of what I might have produced, as containing, in the plainest words, the same great doctrine:

"Exod. xx. 3: Thou shalt have no other God besides me,' Deut. vi. 4: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,' which is called (Mark xii. 29) by our Saviour himself, the first of all the commandments.' 1 Cor. viii. 6: To 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 by him." Eph. iv. 5, 6: One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' 1 Tim. ii. 5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.'

"With respect to that one text, which this writer selects, as no doubt thinking it to be particularly favourable to his purpose, viz. 1 John v. 20: And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life: I take the liberty to refer him to my 'Illustration of particular Texts of Scripture,' where he may learn that by the phrases, viz. him that is true, and the true God, we are to understand God the Father only, the same whom our Saviour himself expressly styles the only true God, when, in his solemn prayer, (John xvii. 3,) he said, That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' This alone should make us consider any interpretation of a passage which should make it say that

there was another true God, as necessarily wrong, whatever other meaning should be put upon it. Supposing that in some part of the English Old Testament (in which the doctrine of the unity of God is so fully taught) it should be said that Moses was the true God; would any man, on that account, believe him to be so? He would immediately say that it must either be a wrong translation, that something else was intended besides what the words seemed to import, or that the passage was an interpolation.

1

"If we be influenced by what only seems to be contained in the Scriptures, without using our reason in the interpretation of them, we may as well at once admit the doctrine of Transubstantiation; for nothing can be more directly taught in the words of scripture. Does not our Saviour himself say, (Matt. xxvi. 26,) Take eat, this is my body;' and likewise, vers. 27, 28, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood'? Did he not also say, in the synagogue of Capernaum, [John vi. 53, 55,] Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him;' with much more to the same purpose? There is no maxim of criticism clearer than this, viz. that no man of common understanding could mean to say either what was manifestly absurd, or what should be a flat contradiction to what he had expressly and repeatedly asserted. Now, nothing can be more absurd than the doctrine of three divine persons making only one God; nor can any writers more expressly contradict themselves, than by first teaching the doctrine of one God, calling that God the Father, and even the God and Father of Christ, and then saying, that this Christ is himself God, equal to his own God and Father. If I could make no sense at all of any particular passages that might be found in any of the Sacred Writings, I should say, without scruple, that this could not be their sense.

As your Letters, Sir, suppose that you have attended to the course of this controversy, you must, I presume, have read this passage. With what face, then, can you say that my appeal is not to the Scriptures, and that I refuse to abide by their evidence?

In my reply to Dr. Purkis, who charged the Socinians in general with a "sceptical desire of explaining away the phraseology of scripture," I said, "The plain language of

* See Vol. XVIII. pp. 568, 569.

scripture is much more in favour of Unitarianism than of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is with difficulty made to accord to the latter. The great doctrine of the strict unity of God, and also that of the pure humanity of Christ, is the common language of the Scriptures, where no figure is used, or can be suspected. As when the apostle says, (1 Tim. ii. 5,) To us there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' By what construction of words and phrases can the doctrine of the Trinity be reconciled with this passage? Must not the literal meaning be explained away before it can be made consistent with this mysterious doctrine?

"The texts which the Unitarians have to accommodate to their system are very few indeed, compared with those which the Trinitarians must subject to their mode of torture."*

Perhaps you will say, that these pieces being written in an early period of the controversy, you had overlooked them; but, surely, you must at least have read that part of the controversy in which your great champion, the learned Bishop of St. David's, is concerned. He more than once made the same groundless objection that you now do, and I more than once replied to it; the second time reminding him of what I had observed before. Please, Sir, to peruse the following extracts from my Letters to him, [1784,] when Archdeacon of St. Alban's.

"But perhaps the most extraordinary part of your whole work will be thought to be the following: in answer to my saying, that there are many, very many passages of scripture, which inculcate the doctrine of the Divine unity in the clearest and strongest manner,' you say, ' Be pleased, Sir, to produce one of the many;' meaning, evidently, that there is no such passage; and you add, The Unitarians themselves pretend not that their doctrine is to be found in the plain, literal sense of holy writ. On the contrary, they take the greatest pains to explain away the literal meaning.'

"Now, Sir, if you had really read any Unitarian treatise at all, you must have known that this representation is the reverse of the fact. We Unitarians certainly pretend at least, whether we be able to prove it or not, that the general tenor, and plain literal sense of scripture, is in our favour; that they are only particular texts, and those ill-understood, that you avail yourselves of; and we say, that there is no

* See Vol. XVIII. p. 360.

difficulty in interpreting even those texts in perfect consis tency with the Unitarian doctrine, if the true idiom of the language be considered.

"You complain of my not reading but only looking through authors. But, surely, you cannot have even looked through the very Letters of mine that you are professedly replying to. Let me, therefore, bring again before your view a paragraph or two in those Letters, which, as far as pretensions go, directly contradict your confident assertion. There you will find as follows: I will venture to say, that for one text in which you can pretend to find any thing harsh or difficult to me, I will engage to produce ten that shall create more difficulty to you. How strangely must you torture the plainest language, and in which there is not a shadow of figure, to interpret to your purpose, 1 Tim. ii. 5: There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' 1 Cor. viii. 6: To 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 by him;' or that expression of our Saviour himself, (John xvii. 3,) That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.'! Never upbraid us Unitarians with torturing the Scriptures, while you have these and a hundred other plain texts to strain at, and to bend to your Athanasian hypothesis; besides many general arguments, from reason and the Scriptures, of more real force than any particular texts, to answer.

This, Sir, was certainly answering your challenge to produce one plain text in favour of the Unitarian doctrine, before it was thrown out. I appeal to yourself for the obvious sense of the passages I have now recited; and you say, It is a principle with me, that the true sense of any phrase in the New Testament is what may be called its standing sense, that which will be the first to occur to common people, of every country, and in every age.'

•

"I would also refer you to a small piece I lately published, entitled, A general View of the Arguments for the Unity of God, and against the Divinity and Pre-existence of Christ, from Reason, from the Scriptures, and from History,' which you seem to have seen, as you refer to my two-penny pamphlets, for this is sold for two-pence. There you will find, not only that Socinians pretend to have the clear sense of scripture in their favour, but many of those passages expressive of that clear sense, produced. I there observe, that the Scriptures contain the clearest and the most express

declarations, that there is but one God, without ever mentioning any exception in favour of a Trinity, or guarding us against being led into any mistake by such general and unlimited expressions.' And if this language, as you suppose, always respected the multiplicity of gods among the Heathens, why is this one God in the New Testament always called the Father, and even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and why are we no where told that this one God is the Trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? This, Sir, is the language of your Litany only. The Bible used in our conventicles, contains no such barbarous jargon.

"I would also recommend to your perusal another pamphlet of mine, called, An Appeal to the serious and candid Professors of Christianity, of which more than ten thousand have been sold for a penny each; and of this I have lately published a new edition, and have annexed to it the remarkable Trial of Mr. Elwall, of Wolverhampton, in this neighhourhood, for his publications in defence of the Socinian doctrine. These small publications of mine have, I trust, done much good, though you will call it much mischief, in this country; and I rejoice in perceiving the increase of this good, or this mischief, every day; and I have no doubt of the successful spread of religious truth by means of these publications, notwithstanding all you can do to counteract them."*

It may appear strange to quote so much from my own writings; but is it not more strange that your conduct, Sir, should make this of mine necessary? The quotations, however, abundantly prove that, whether I understand the Scriptures or not, I am not afraid to appeal to them, and that I even make the great hinge of this controversy to turn upon them; though you insist upon it that I professedly reject the argument from the Scriptures, as impertinent and inconclusive.

After reading your Letters, I shall not wonder at your still persisting in saying, that I even now reject the authority of scripture; for I can say nothing stronger on the subject than I have repeatedly done before. This conduct of yours puts me in mind of the humorous attempt of Dean Swift to prove against Partridge himself, that he was dead; and when the poor man replied, that if he was dead, he could not have answered him, the Dean said, that such an

* See Vol. XVIII. pp. 239–241.