course address Him not with any religious worship. If their opinion be wrong, they incur the damnable guilt of withholding that worship which God demands as unalienably his due. Such are the dangerous and fatal confequences of error on either fide of this momentous point. But how is this question to be decided? that our finite reafon is utterly incompetent to comprehend this mystery of infinity, is pretty generally agreed by both parties; and both of consequence appeal to the written word of God, reveal'd in the holy Scriptures; conscious that we can know no more of God than He has been graciously pleas'd to discover of Himfelf. Here then the matter is at iffue. We produce texts, declarative of Chrift's co-equality with the Father. They produce texts, declarative of Chrift's inferiority to the Father. To these our reply is obvious. We fay that all fuch texts manifeftly relate to the human nature affum'd by Chrift; whom we affert to be equal with the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood. Their reply to our arguments is different, according to the kind of opponents they have to encounter. To the learned, and fuch as are tolerably vers'd in Biblical knowledge, they endeavour to evade the force of the texts which affert or imply the Divinity of Christ, Chrift, by forc'd interpretations; perverting the fenfe, or allegorizing the meaning in a way that would deftroy the credit of any the plaineft history whatever; and by mif-quotations, ftrain'd perverhions, and falfe tranflations, would fain perfuade us, that our doctrine of the Trinity is novel, unknown to the Apostles, to the primitive Chriftians, and to the Fathers of the first three centuries; in fhort, to be reckon'd among, and even reprobated more than the other corruptions of Christianity, which fprung up fo plentifully in the dark ages. To the unlearned, who compose the bulk of mankind, they address themselves in a different manner. Appealing to that pride, which more or lefs is a latent principle or ingredient in the compofition of human nature ever fince the fall of Man, they afk with a triumphant fneer, Have you common fenfe? fay, if you have, how can one be three, and three one? will you, can you believe fuch a contradiction? and why? because your Parfons tell you fo. And why do they tell you fo? they cannot be fuch fools as to believe it themselves, but are the menial fervants of the establishment; the devoted flaves of creeds and articles of human invention, and base enough to accept the wages of iniquity; and as dirty hirelings ready to do the vileft drudgery, and to preach the groffeft abfurdi ties ties, in confideration of being paid for it. Such are the methods by which Sectaries aim to propagate their herefies; fuch the calumnies with which they load your lawful Paftors: thus would the wolves perfuade the fheep to difcard their faithful guardians and protectors the dogs, in order that themselves may ravage the fold with impunity. Having thus ftated the nature and fingular importance of this question, and given you a specimen of the infidious arts and barefac'd calumnies reforted to by the opposers of the Trinitarian doctrine; I wish here to remind you, that having in. the course of my miniftry among you, fometimes exclufively, and much oftener incidentally dif cours'd upon this fubject, You therefore can not expect any thing new at prefent. To advert to the formal defences of Unitarianifm, to expose their various fallacies of miftranflations, mifquotations, and perverfions of different texts of Scripture, and paffages of ancient writers, is a task which has been most ably and fatisfactorily executed by eminent Divines of our Church, particularly by one who is now feated on the epifcopal bench, and is an honour to the age and nation; but is by no means fuited to the pulpit, especially in addreffing a plain audience. The fcanty portion of time yet remain remaining to be allotted to this discourse, fhall be employ'd, first in obviating their popular infinuations, and then in pointing out to your notice a few out of the many plain fcriptural proofs of the Trinity intending in my next to explain and recommend fome methods, whereby any fincere, however unlearned reader of the Bible, may fully fatisfy himself of the truth of this fundamental article. First then let me review their popular objections. How, they afk, can three be one, and one three? I answer, by no means: no more than it can be noon at midnight, or midnight at noon. But who ever told you this? Your Parfons, they reply. Then your Parfons must be fools and liars. But do we, or do our creeds affirm that there are three Gods? fo far from it, that the Athanafian creed fays exprefsly there are not three Gods, but one God. But how then, answer they, can the Father be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God? Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are three; and if each of these be God, there are three Gods. This we deny; affirming the three Perfons to be one God. How can you explain, or even comprehend this? alas! we are totally unable to comprehend, much lefs can we explain it. Why then do you require it to be believ'd, as an article of Faith? On the authority authority of Scripture. I find it to be the uniform. doctrine of the Bible, that there is but one God, the Father and Maker of all things. Yet I read in the fame Bible fuch paffages applied to Chrift and the Holy Ghost, as can be competent to God alone. Some of these paffages I fhall foon point out to you; but muft first notice their farcasms on creeds and Parfons. Creeds, you are told, are of human invention, the work of fallible men. We grant it; but did the compilers of thefe Creeds deliver the doctrines therein contain'd, as their own, or as the doctrines of God in Scripture? A Judge on the bench is a fallible man; he is bound to decide by the Laws of the land: if his fentence be not conformable to thofe laws, it will be revers'd; if it be in conformity with them, it must stand. So with regard to the compilers of Creeds and articles; as alfo with us the Preachers of the Gofpel. The Scriptures are our fole guide. If what we deliver be not confonant to them, reject it: if it be, it is the word of God, and as fuch infallible, though deliver'd by fallible men. But we are Hirelings. By this they can not mean that we reap any additional pecuniary advantage by preaching this particular doctrine; but that being bound by our subscription to articles, we are of course oblig'd to adhere to the doctrines of the Church, whether in |