Stephen, mere requests to one personally, and visibly present, and not prayers. God and Christ as much distinguished from each other, as Abraham and Lazarus. As much reason for concluding that Luke did not consider Christ, who could not stand at his own right hand, to be God, as that he did not consider Lazarus, who could not be in his own bosom, to be Abraham. p. 357.-Paul's statement, 2 Cor. xii. 8, that he besought the Lord thrice that the thorn in the flesh might depart from him, admits of a similar explanation. That of the Trinitarians is at variance with the express injunction of our Lord, and with the uniform practice of all the Apostles, p. 358.—The texts Acts ix. 14, 1 Cor. i. 2, which the common version represents as relating to persons who call on the name of the Lord Jesus, may be rendered 'as relating to persons called by that name,' and also in other senses. p. 359. -The Apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, no prayer, but a pious wish, and it is not addressed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, hut to the Corinthians only. p. 360.—If the Divine's hypothesis were correct, that it does not comport with the office the Holy Spirit holds, to be addressed in prayer as the Son, nor with that of the Son, to be addressed as frequently as the Father, then taking the instances he mentions of the latter, which were only when he was personally and visibly present, we should have a Trinity of three personal distinctions, the first of whom is to be prayed to without restriction; the second, only when he is personally and visibly present; and the third, not at all. p. 361.-Whatever might he thought of this, if our prayers were in conformity to it, we should pray to the Father only, and the Unitarians might join. p. 362.-The passages John xiv. 26, John xvi. 13, do not prove the personality of the Holy Spirit. If such an important doctrine, upon the belief of which men's salvation is made to depend, had been true, it would have been clearly and specifically revealed, and not left to be made out by inference from putting the masculine pronoun vos into one scale, to balance the neutral article to in the other. p. 362.-The frequent personifications of the Scripture writers, and of John in particular, account for the introduction of the word sxevos, and when we find the name of God, the breath of God, and almost all his attributes personified, no wonder that his Spirit is personified also. p. 363.-The Spirit when sent, represented in Acts ii, as a thing, as something with which persons were filled,' which was poured out, shed forth, and made a present of to multitudes, meaning nothing but miraculous powers, communicated not by a supposed Holy Spirit, but by Christ himself; and the Apostle Peter says not a syllable about a PERSON called the Holy Spirit, though expressly treating on the subject of the Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian could have given such an account of the Son and Spirit, as this Apostle does. p. 364.-The whole of the text, Acts x. 38, representing God as having anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit, and with power, would be incongruous, and ridiculous, upon the supposition of the Holy Spirit being a person. p. 365.-Figurative use of the word Spirit, 2 Kings ii. 9, in the case of Elijah and Elisha. p. 366.-Instances of the Spirit being said to dwell in persons, and of Faith, the word of Christ, and sin, being said to do the like: also of the Spirit being

said to be given sometimes by measure, and sometimes without measure. p. 369. The term 'spirit of a person' frequently used to denote the person himself, and the Spirit of God used to mean the same thing as to God, that the spirit of a man does to a man. Ib.-No instance in the Scriptures of the Spirit, though it was to lead the Disciples into all truth, having communicated to them the knowledge that it was a person in the Godhead, distinct from, but equal to, the Father and Son, and together with them, to be praised, worshipped, and glorified, or that any one ever did praise, worship, or glorify it. It follows, therefore, demonstrably, that it is not the truth. Ib.-We may make sense of the passage in John without understanding the Spirit to be a real person, as well as of that in Prov. viii. 1-4, without understanding Wisdom to be a real person. There is no reason for adopting a construction not sanctioned by any plain declaration in Scripture, which has occasioned the setting up an imaginary person, and investing him with the attributes of the Supreme Being, and has ended in our praying to, worshipping and glorifying him, which is irreconcileable both with the precepts, and practice, of every one of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, and of our Lord himself. p. 368.— The two texts, Matt. xxiv. 36, Mark xiii. 32, stating that our Lord did not know the day of Judgement, are so clear, that the only difficulty is to create a doubt about their meaning: but it is very doubtful whether the word day is to be understood in the sense of the corresponding Hebrew word in the Hyphil, meaning 'to make known.' Why it is not to be so understood. p. 371. Ephes. iii. 10, demonstrates that the Apostle Paul, who was a Hebrew, and accustomed to the Hyphil, knew better when addressing Gentiles who knew nothing of the Hyphil, than to employ the Greek verb daw, which signifies only to know, in the sense of making known,' a sense in which none of them would have understood it. He therefore used another word, namely yvwgion, from yvwę, one of the ordinary meanings of which is 'to make known.' p. 372.— Clear that our Lord did not speak, nor the Apostle Matthew write, in the Hyphil; which is confirmed by Mark. p. 373 —The proposed version of making known,' tried by the test of putting it into the text, and its absurdity thereby demonstrated. p. 374.-The plain and original sense of the word not only presents us with a clear and consistent sense, but also with a noble climax. p. 375.-The Divine misled by the common version, in supposing that Christ distinguishes himself from men. The Greek word is oudus, no one, which gives an intelligible and beautiful meaning, without any such distinction. Ib.Whether these texts refer to the day of judgement, or not, does not affect the argument. They prove, upon the authority of Christ himself, that Christ is not God. p. 376.-Not contrary to Scripture to affirm, that God can qualify one of the human race for the office of Universal Judge. Christ originally not so qualified, but required to be taught, to learn, and to be made perfect, and it is God who dwells in him, and acts by him, and is so to do in the future state. Ib. The words 'mere creature,' a Trinitarian gloss. p. 379.-The Divine too cautious to take the affirmative upon him, and to assert that the ALMIGHTY cannot qualify a mere creature to judge the whole human race. Id.-Acts xvii,

man.

30, 31, would dispose of the quotation, Psalm 1. 6, that God is judged himself, even if the latter referred to the general judgement, which it is likely it does not. p. 380.-Not clear that St. Paul in Rom. xiv. 10. 12, quotes Is. xlv. 23; but if it were, it would furnish no proof of Christ being God. The judgements of Christ, who is the agent, and called a man, and nothing more, are the judgements of God, who is the principal; and bowing the knee to him, when invested with the character of God's representative, is in effect bowing it to God; and giving an account of himself to him upon the same occasion, is giving an account of himself to God. p. 381.-This illustrated by the King's debtors accounting to him, and the King's judges pronouncing his judgements. All is plain as A B C, except when connected with religious controversy. Ib.-Our Lord's being the son of man, not the strangest of all reasons for all judgement being committed to him, but the reason he himself has assigned for it. p. 382.-'Son of man' means nothing more than a mere The Prophet Ezekiel called so more than fifty times. If Christ being God, was the reason why all judgement was committed to him, that would be the strongest reason, and would have been most frequently mentioned; but Christ and his Apostles, who have assigned the former reason for it, have never mentioned this. p. 382.-Nor would God's appointment of Christ to the office, because he is the son of man, be any reason for every one of us being appointed to it, but the contrary. p. 384.-The assertion, John xvii. 3, that the Father is the only true God, is not merely in opposition to idols, but stands absolute, and excludes every other being, but the Father, from being such, and consequently excludes the Son and Spirit. p. 384.-When one of two persons calls the other the only true God, we cannot, believing him to speak the truth, contradict him, and say that he himself is also the only true God. Christ only asserted that the Father was the only true God, but said not a syllable of the Son or Spirit, much less of all three being so. p. 386. -The Almighty Father, who spake by the Prophets, has declared by them, that he the Father alone, is God. p. 387.-In this passage our Lord mentions himself as contradistinguished from the Father, and applies the epithet of 'the only true God' to the Father, and not to himself, thereby excluding himself, and acknowledging that he was not God. Ib.-1 John v. 20. We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in or by his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life,' explained and shewn to be adverse to the Trinitarian scheme, but perfectly in unison with John xvii. 3, each text throwing great light upon the other. p. 388.-Further remarks on 1 John v. 20, and Griesbach's marking the words Incov Xgirov, as doubtful. p. 390.Reply to the objection that if 1 Cor. viii. 4. 6. excludes the son from being God, it excludes the Father from being Lord, that both allegations stand absolute, and are perfectly consistent, the first excluding all persons but the Father from being God, and the second, all persons but the Son, from being Lord to us. p. 391.-We have only to inquire in what sense Christ is alleged to be Lord to us, which St. Peter shows, Acts ii. 36, to have been, that of a

delegated Lord appointed by the Father, in which sense there is no other Lord to us but Christ. p.393.-That the word 'Lord,' here used, does not mean God, but some other person, and means Lord in spiritual things; that the Heathens having many Gods, had many Lords in spiritual things under their Gods, whilst we Christians having but one God, have but one Lord in spiritual things under our God. This, a beautiful and well connected meaning, which renders the whole passage perfectly clear. p. 394.-But if the words were to be understood in a more general sense, the Apostle Paul shews, 1 Cor. xv. 27, that the Father must upon all such occasions be considered to be excepted. p. 395.-But when the sole sovereignty of the Father is mentioned in Scripture, there is not one solitary instance of any such exception in favour of the Son, or in favour of the Holy Ghost. In this very passage, where the Father is expressly excepted, the Holy Ghost is not, nor is any notice taken of it. The necessary inference from this. p. 396.-If the Apostle had not been an Unitarian himself, he could never have expressed himself as he has done, which would have been calculated to mislead his hearers, and make them, what in fact they were, all Unitarians. Ib.-Why the Author quoted Dr. Doddridge's interpretation of the phrase 'ascending up into Heaven,' but rejects his notion of the eternal generation of the Son. p. 397.-Other proofs from John vi. that ascending up into Heaven, and coming down from Heaven, cannot mean a literal, and local ascent, or descent. What they do mean. p. 398.-The Author rejects the existing creeds, 1st, because they contain doctrines not only not contained in, but contrary to, the Scriptures; and secondly, because he denies the authority of any uninspired men to establish creeds, as necessary to be believed by Christians. The creeds they have framed contradictory and absurd, and have been productive of incalculable discord, misery, and bloodshed. p. 400.-Contradictions in, and additions made to, the creed called the Apostles' Creed, which the Apostles however had no concern in the fabrication of. p. 401. Observations upon the Nicene creed, which begins scripturally, but afterwards represents the almighty, eternal, immortal, and invisible God to have been crucified, dead and buried. Also, in flat contradiction to St. Paul, that Christ's Kingdom shall have no end; and also, without any warrant in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost is the Lord and giver of life, that he is, together with the Father and Son, to be worshipped and glorified, which he is never required to be, nor is ever said to have been by any one in Scripture, and that he spake by the prophets, contrary to Heb. i. 1, which states it to have been the Father who spake by the Prophets. p. 401. Remarks upon the creed called the Creed of St. Athanasius, whose creed it is not, a creed which all parties have long wished us well rid of, and which has been struck out in America. Defective, unwarranted, and inconsistent statements of. p. 404. Refutation of the Divine's assertion, that fact confirms what the SCRIPTURES fully testify, that the reception of the Trinitarian doctrines so as to render them vital and efficacious, depends upon a certain state of mind produced by the Holy Spirit. p. 405. In Christianity every thing necessary to make us wise unto salvation is placed in broad day

light, and open sun-shine, but we are too apt to prefer the darkness of MYSTERY to the light of Revelation. p. 407. Dr. Stock does not support his change of opinion either by reason or Scripture. Ib.—The two supposed first Chapters of Matthew not confirmed by the supposed corresponding chapters of Luke, for they are completely at war with each other. p. 408. Assumption of the term 'Evangelical' by the Calvinists. They ought rather to be called EPISTOLARIANS. lb.-The Divine's statement, that Unitarian sentiments appear to leave a creature who has sinned, without a foundation on which he can stand at the tribunal of his judge, that the atonement which the SCRIPTURES declare to be the grand design of Christ's coming, requires the divinity of Christ, that it may satisfy divine justice, and that if his divinity and the atonement could be disproved, we should have our religion to seek, for that of the Scriptures could not meet the necessities of fallen man, furnish another melancholy instance of the manner in which the sacred writings are appealed to, for what they do not contain. Inquiry where the Scriptures make any such declarations. p. 409.-No such word as 'atonement' in the whole of the New Testament, except once in the common version, where the word naraλλaynı is mistranslated so. When translated rightly, 'reconciliation,' it is the reverse of the atonement. p. 410.-The very passage in which it is thus mistranslated, Rom. v. 10, would with such mistranslation be destructive of the Calvinistic doctrine. Ib.-Strange notion, that every offence against an infinite Being, is an infinite offence, and requires infinite satisfaction, or infinite punishment. A finite being cannot commit an infinite offence. p. 411.-Such an offence, though committed against an infinite Being, cannot therefore become infinite. p. 412.-Not true that all offences committed against Sovereigns are punished more severely than such as are committed against subjects. Attempts against their life or throne are, because by such attempts the one may be destroyed, and the other overthrown, but the King of kings holds his existence and authority by no such precarious tenure. He laughs at all such attempts against him, and makes them all subservient to the accomplishment of his purposes. p. 413.-Comparison of the supposed Evangelical, and the Unitarian systems. The former represents the Supreme Being to be a compound Deity, a triune God, enshrined in MYSTERY, and described in characters which would compel us to consider him, if we believed them, to be an unjust, malignant, and cruel Divinity. It represents him as having, from all eternity, predestinated the great mass of his intelligent offspring to exquisite and never-ending torments, and as having, well-knowing it, thought fit to call them into existence. p. 414.-Nature of the covenant it supposes to have been made with Adam, which no wise or good Being would have permitted him to enter into. p. 415.-A bright and glittering prize held up by it to him, which he, the promiser, knew at the time would turn up a most dreadful blank. Ib.-An infernal spirit also let loose upon him, without any intimation of his being exposed to such an unknown enemy. p. 416.-This spirit of dark. ness represented as having been long at war with the ALMIGHTY, and as having actually got the better of him, and frustrated his intentions as to the greater