The passages that assert the numerical unity of the Supreme Being in the New Testament, are equally explicit with the preceding quotations from the Old.

Matt. xxix. 17; Mark xii. 29, 32; John xvii. 1, 3; Rom. iii. 30, xvi. 27; 2 Cor. viii. 4, 6; Gal. iii. 20; Ephes. iv. 4-6; 1 Tim. i. 17, ii. 5, vi. 14-16; James ii. 19; Jude 4; Rev. xv. 3, 4.

The Unitarians say, that if there be any meaning in language, the above quotations prove God to be numerically one.

In the following texts the SON is declared to be, and to act in all things, subordinate to the Father, and to derive all his power and authority from the Father.

Matt. vii. 21, x. 40, xi. 25—27, xii. 50, xvi. 27, xix. 17, xx. 23, xxvi. 39–53, xxvii. 46, xxviii. 18, 19; Mark ix. 37, xiii. 32; Luke iv. 18, 43. x. 16, xxii. 29; John iii. 16, 17, 32-35, iv. 34, v. 19-43, vi. 38-40, vii. 1642, viii. 49, 54, ix. 4, x. 17-37, xi. 22, 41, 42, xii. 44 -50, xiii. 3, 31, 32, xiv. 10-31, xvi. 5, xvii. 1-25, xviii. 11, xx. 17, 21. These are the passages of the gospels wherein we have the words of Christ himself, who surely would not so frequently have used such strong expressions as the preceding passages contain, of his inferiority and subordination to the Father, if the case had not been that he really was so. The other passages of the New Testament that prove the same point may be seen collected by Dr. Clarke, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.

Whatever the HOLY SPIRIT be, he or it is said to be under the power, dominion, and direction of the FATHER, in the following passages, which, of course, put a negative on his co-equality with the latter.

Matt. xii. 18; Luke xi. 13; John iii. 34, xiv. 16, 17, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 13; Acts ii. 17, 18, 33, v. 32, viii. 18-20, x. 38, xi. 17, xv. 8; Rom. v. 5, viii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 10-12, vi. 19, xii. 6-9; 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5; Ephes. i. 17, iii. 16; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7; Tit. 3-6; Heb. ii. 4; 1 John iii. 24, iv. 13.

Is it not something very extraordinary, upon the supposition of the co-equality of the three persons in the Trinity, that there should be such strong and such numerous passages that lead to the conclusion of the inferiority and absolute subjection of the Son, and the Holy

Ghost to the Father, and yet that there should not be one passage throughout the Bible that can any way induce us to conclude the subordination, real or apparent, of the Father to the Son or Holy Spirit?

per

There is no kind of doubt, but every man must form some opinion on a subject that he has attended to: of course he will adopt that opinion which he thinks right. Thus the translators of our Bible, according to the fashion of the times, were Trinitarians; and of course, also, they translated the Bible in conformity to their Trinitarian notions. And they did right. Were a Socinian to make a new translation, he would translate under the guidance of his Socinian opinions; and properly: every man has a right to promote, by all fair means, that opinion which he deems conformable to truth. But let it for a moment be supposed, that the words to pneuma agion had been translated, according to their literal import, as a person unbiassed by either opinion would most certainly have rendered them, would a noun of the neuter gender be sonified, unless figuratively? Or would not pneuma have been rendered, spirit, breath, or inspiration? And if it had been translated literally, and its neuter signification. been preserved in the translation, and had this translation been authorised in our churches, would any one have en tertained a notion, that this holy inspiration, a gift (as it is perpetually termed), was a real personage; hypostatically distinct from the Supreme Being, and yet equal to him in every attribute? I have no conception that it would. The same remark will apply to the terms Ecclesia, congregation, which has been rendered church; manifestly for the purpose of subjugating our consciences and opinions to those who call themselves our spiritual rulers ; so Baptizo, to dip, which we hellenistically term baptize, and thereby conceal the heterodoxy of our practice in baptism, &c.

In the following passages the HOLY SPIRIT is distinguished, not merely from the Father or the Son, but from God. Hence he cannot be the same as God; i. e. he cannot be God.

1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, iii. 16, vi. 19; 1 Pet. iv. 14; Matt. iii. 16, xii. 28; Rom. viii. 9, 14, xv. 19, and in several other places wherein he is termed the Spirit of God.

In all the passages, however, wherein mention is made of the Holy Spirit, the expression has one of the following significations.

1. By a common figure (not literally, as the Trinitarians expound) God himself; as in

Gen. vi. 3; Ps. cxxxix. 7, cxliii. 10; Is. lxiii. 10, compared with Numb. xiv. 11; Acts v. 3, compared with the next verse, &c., &c.

In like manner, by the same figure, the spirit of a man is put for the man himself; as in

Gen. xli. 8, xlv. 27; Deut. ii. 30; Ps. lxxvii. 3, cxliii. 7, lxxvi. 12; Eccles. iii. 21; Luke i. 47; 1 Cor. xiv. 14, xvi. 18, ii. 11; 2 Corinth. ii. 13; 2 Tim. vi. 22, and in many other places in the common translation, and more in the original, as the Bishop of Carlisle has shewn in his Appendix to his Theory of Religion. By the same figure the heart of a man is also frequently put for the man himself.

2. In other passages the Holy Spirit is put for the energy, operation, power, or wisdom of God; as in

Gen. i. 2; Job xxviii. 7, compared with Gen. ii. 7; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Job xxxiii. 4; Is. xxxiv. 16; Luke i. 35; Acts x. 38, &c., &c.

3. Some holy talent, quality or disposition, immediately imparted by God to man; as in

Numb. xi. 17; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2; Ps. li. 11; Is. lxiii. 11; Dan. iv. 8, 9, 18, v. 11, 14; Luke xi. 13; Ephes. i. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 8, and in all those passages before quoted, wherein the Holy Spirit is represented as subordinate to, and under the power, dominion, and direction of the Father. The Son also appears to have had authority and power to import such a talent, quality, gift or disposition, in the passages before quoted, where the Spirit is declared or implied to be subordinate to the Son. This will also explain the passages, wherein the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father.

The other scriptural uses of the term Spirit, seem also conclusive against the Trinitarian meaning affixed to it, Thus we read of

The Spirit of Fear.
The Spirit of Burning.
The Spirit of Slumber.
The Spirit of Whoredom.

The Spirit of Counsel.

The Spirit of Divination.
The Spirit of Error, &c.

Such is a brief sketch of the reasons that may be adduced against the doctrine of Three Persons in One God. There is no doubt but truth will, in the end, prevail. At present, indeed, it is in theological as in political matters, not the weight of argument, but the number of voices that carry the day. Ecclesiastical, however, as well as political tyranny seems on the decline, and it is the duty of every friend of mankind to exert his endeavours unceasingly to hasten their downfal.

OBITUARY.

On the 20th inst., at Brighton, aged 72, SAMUEL THOMPSON, Esq., formerly of Holborn Hill. He was the principal founder of the Society calling themselves Free-thinking Christians.

Lately, Mr. JOHN WALKER, a considerable Classical Scholar, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. He became a Baptist Dissenter, with some peculiarities as to discipline; and frequently visited Scotland, with a view to spread his religious opinions.

CORRESPONDENCE.

WE are requested to state, that the subscriptions of Mrs. Noble, of Taunton, for the last Assembly, were received too late for publication; but they will be duly acknowledged in next year's proceedings.

INDEX.

Baptism, change in the mode of, Gale, Dr., biographical sketch of,