willing fafferings in confirming the truth of the gospel, for the benefit of mankind. But this worship paid to this lamb that was flain, (i, e. to a creature, and to a mortal creature, capable of dying,) cannot be divine worship; the worship to be paid to God, cannot be conftrued into an invocation of the holy Jefus in prayer; efpecially when there is no command in the fcriptures for it, given by Chrift himself, or, by almighty God: but it must be, that worship, reverence, and respect which we pay to fellow-creatures, our fuperiors in worth and excellence; worship proportionate to the highly virtuous and pious character of the bleffed Jefus, and his benevolence towards us, whenever we think or speak of him; but not to make him almighty God by praying to him.

ATHANASIAN. My good friend, it does not become a fincere christian to withstand the evidence you have, I think, fairly produced from the word of God. The objection I made, is fatisfactorily answered, more especially that in the fifth chapter of the Revelation; and I really wonder at myself, and many others, who have not been so convinced before.

UNITARIAN. My dear chriftian friend, we ought to make great allowances for each other's infirmities, mistakes, and prejudices, naturally arifing from various caufes. Nothing is more common in human life, than even for thinking perfons to receive information about things seemingly plain and obvious, and which may have efcaped their notice. But the

realinefs

readiness you fhew to fubmit to evidence, when fairly laid before you, upon religious fubjects, proceeds from an excellent temper of mind, which naturally qualifies you to receive the truth, as it is in Jefus. As you freely grant that the athanafian forms of worship must be given up, if the fact be, as I have ftated it, I am willing to put the whole caufe upon this fhort and important iffue. If, upon inquiry, you can point out, by any one plain inftance or precept in fcripture, that it is the duty of chriftians to worship Chrift and the holy fpirit, as being each of them God and three perfons as one God, in prayer, or praise I shall then freely acknowledge myself to be in a religious error, and fhall think myfelf obliged to return to the church-worship, which I have carefully avoided fince the time of my conviction. On the other hand, if you cannot point out any fuch worship, in the fcriptures, you will judge yourself obliged, by your own confeffion, to abhere to fcripture-forms of worship, notwithstanding the authority of even wife and learned men; it being an exprefs duty required of Chrift's difciples, to obey God rather than men.

Let it be obferved, that this argument, drawn from the confideration of the term "worship," is adapted to all capacities, and abfolutely demolishes the athanafian doctrine, with refpect to the worship of the holy fpirit; it being impoffible to conceive that this holy fpirit, who is fuppofed by the athanafians to be of equal dignity with God, the Father, should never

have one prayer directed to him, fhould have no glory ascribed to him in the writings of the apoftles, from whom alone we can receive a faithful account of the christian difpenfation.

Again; how is it poffible to imagine that it was the defign of the facred writers, to fix, in the mind of chriftians, the belief of Father, fon, and holy spirit being three perfons and one God, as they have left us no example of any fort of worship directed to three perfons and one God? If this had been a fundamental doctrine of the gofpel, we should not only have had it plainly and frequently expreffed, but likewife folemn prayers and praifes would have been addreffed to God, under the character of three coequal perfons; otherwife, the apoftles themselves have left us in the dark with regard to an effential part of chriftian worship. Can it enter into the heart of any serious chriftian to believe in earneft, that it is neceffary to falvation to conceive of God, as a being consisting of three persons, (as is profanely and abfurdly maintained in the athanafian creed, which ought to be banished from the fervice of all chriftian focieties) when the apoftles themselves have never made it the duty of chriftians to offer up prayers and praises to God, under the athanafian character: but in all the examples of worship recorded in fcripture, almighty God is always addreffed, as one fupreme intelligent agent, one God and Father of all? This effential failure in the athanafian caufe has, I find,

driven fome of its learned defenders into this palpable abfurdity, that when we pray to God, under the character of Father, the word Father denotes Father, son, and holy spirit; which demonftrates the falfehood of the cause they are labouring to support: it being extremely clear from hence, that they cannot produce one inftance of worship to three perfons and one God. Otherwise, men of fenfe and learning would not Lave recourfe to fuch an expedient, as hath no other tendency, than to turn the fcripture into ridicule, and expofe it to the fcoffs of profane and fceptical

inen.

ATHANASIAN. I freely allow the grand importance of this plain matter of fact, drawn from the article of religious worship. But I would just take notice of a text, that feems to imply the doctrine of a trinity in unity, though no inftance of worship paid to fuch a being appears in fcripture. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word. and the fpirit; and these three are one. (1 John v. 7.)

UNITARIAN. Ever fince I became acquainted with this fubject, it has been matter of ferious lamentation to me, that common chriftians have been fo much impofed upon by the found of this famous text, which, if written by the apoftle John, is nothing to the purpose, the fenfe of it being evidently this; that these three are one, as agreeing in the fame teftimony. But it is a matter of fact, well known to the learned, that it is a fpurious, interpolated text,

and

and has been given up, as fuch, by fome athanafian writers; and confequently, this text ought not to be read in churches, as the word of God. You may fee every thing relating to it faithfully represented, in Sir Ifaac Newton's Letter to Mr. Le Clerc; in the Defence of the Appeal to Common Sense, printed in octavo, 1760, p. 431; and in Mr. Lindsey's Apology, p. 98.

ATHANASIAN. Without entering into the merits of this question, for which I am not qualified; if fome learned profeffors of the trinity in unity have given up this text, as not written by the apostle John*, it must be allowed that no stress should be

laid

* Athanafius himself never referred to this text. (Trin. Controverfy reviewed, p. 447.) Erafmus infifted that it was in no ancient manufcripts, and had never been cited by thofe fathers, who had difputed the moft against the arians, as Athanafius, Cyril, and Hilary, (Jortin's Life of Erafmus, v. 1. p. 345.) Luther and Bullinger omitted it in their german translations of the bible. (Lindfey's Apology p. 99.) Even "in the first english

bibles after the reformation, in the time of Henry "viii. and Edward vi. it was printed in a different cha"racter, to fignify its being wanting in the original, "which diflinction came afterwards to be neglected." (Clarke's Script. Doct. 3d edit. p. 232.) Dr. Wall fays, This verfe is in no greek manufcript, nor was in the bibles of the ancient chriftians; nor ever made use of by them in their difputes with the arians. Mill

has