ven and earth, and the fea, and all that in them is: who, by the mouth of thy fervant David, haft faid, "Why did the heathen rage, "and the people imagine vain things? the "kings of the earth food up, and the rulers "were gathered together, against the Lord, " and against bis Chrift." For of a truth against thy holy Child (or fervant) Jefus, whom thou haft anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Ifrael were gathered together, for to do whatfoever thy hand and thy council determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy fervants, that with all boldness they may Speak thy word, by ftretching forth thy hand to heal, and that figns and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy Child (or servant) Jesus.

We have now examined fome particulars both of the inftructions, and the examples of fcripture, with regard to the proper object of prayer in time of perfecution; from which it appears, that even in this cafe, we have no authority to pray to any other than that one God, to whom Chrift himself prayed

prayed in his affliction; and if we be not authorized to pray to Christ in time of persecution, there is, it is acknowledged, less propriety in praying to him on any other occasion.

As many profess a great regard for those who are called apostolical Fathers, let us attend to the prayer of Polycarp, when he was tied to the stake, ready to be burned alive. Now this prayer, which is a pretty remarkable one, is addressed to God the Father, and not to Christ; so that this difciple of the apostle John, did not think the example of Stephen any precedent for him. The prayer begins as follows: “O “ Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy “ well-beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ;

by whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and especially of the whole race of just men, &c.” We see then, how greatly men may

be milled by speculative theology, by an attention to particular texts, single incidents, and imaginary proprieties, without attending to ' the general tenor of scripture, the plain

directions that are there given for our conduct, and the constant practice of the apostles, which supply the best interpretation of their doctrine. To conclude, as some have done, from the single case of Stephen, that all christians are authorized to pray to Christ, is like concluding that all matter has a tendency to go upwards, because a needle will do so when a magnet is held over it. When they shall be in the fame circumstances with Stephen, having their minds strongly impressed with a vision of Christ fitting at the right hand of God, they may then, perhaps, be authorized to address themselves to him as he did ; but

; the whole tenor of the scriptures proves that, otherwise we' have no authority at all for any such practice. And if Christ be not the object of prayer, he cannot be either God, or the maker and governor of the world under God.

SECTION

a

Of the Arguments against the Doctrine of the

Trinity as implying a Contradiction. IT

T has been shewn that there is no such

doctrine as that of the trinity in the scriptures, but I will now add that, if it had been found there, it would have been impossible for a reasonable man to believe it, as it implies a contradiction, which no miracles can prove.

I ask then, wherein does the Athanafian doctrine of the trinity differ from a contradi&tion? It afferts in effect that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God, each of them being equal in eternity, and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are therefore both one and many in the same respect, viz. in each being perfe&t God. This is certainly as much a contradiction, as to say that Peter, James, and John, having each of

them every thing that is requifite to conftitute a complete man, are yet all together not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words God, or man, cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propofitions. After the council of Nice, there are inftances of the doctrine of the trinity being explained in this very manner. The Fathers of that age being particularly intent on preferving the full equality of the three perfons, entirely lost fight of their proper unity. And in what manner foever this doctrine be explained, one of these must ever be facrificed to the other. As perfons are apt to confound themselves with the ufe of the words perfon and being, I fhall endeavour to give a plain account of

them.

The term being may be predicated of every thing, and therefore of each of the three perfons in the trinity. For to say that Christ, for inftance, is God, but that there is no being, no fubftance, to which his attributes may be referred, were manifeftly abfurd; and therefore when it is faid that each of these perfons is by himself God, the meanVOL. I.

E

ing