for the future, and they will lose the best argument
they have against the orthodox expositions of Scripture.

Good doctor! you sadly over-rated both your own powers, and the docility
of your adversaries. If so clear a head and so zealous a Trinitarian as
Dr. Waterland could not digest your exposition, or acquit it of
Tritheism, little hope is there of finding the Unitarians more
persuadable.

Ib. p. 154.

Though Christ be God himself, yet if there be three Persons in the
Godhead, the equality and sameness of nature does not destroy the
subordination of Persons: a Son is equal to his Father by nature, but
inferior to him as his Son: if the Father, as I have explained it, be
original mind and wisdom, the Son a personal, subsisting, but reflex
image of his Father's wisdom, though their eternal wisdom be equal and
the same, yet the original is superior to the image, the Father to the
Son.

But why? We men deem it so, because the image is but a shadow, and not
equal to the original; but if it were the same in all perfections, how
could that, which is exactly the same, be less? Again, God is all
Being:--consequently there can nothing be added to the idea, except what
implies a negation or diminution of it. If one and the same Being is
equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead, but inferior as man; then
it is + 'm-x', which is not = + 'm'. But of two men I may say, that they
are equal to each other. A. = + courage-wisdom. B. = + wisdom-courage.
Both wise and courageous; but A. inferior in wisdom, B. in courage. But
God is all-perfect.

Ib. p. 156.

So born before all creatures, as [Greek: prototokos] also signifies,
'that by him were all things created'.

'All things were created by him, and for him, and he is before all
things', (which is the explication of [Greek: portotokos pasaes
ktiseos], begotten before the whole creation', and therefore no part
of the creation himself.)

This is quite right. Our version should here be corrected. [Greek:
Proto] or [Greek: protaton] is here an intense comparative,--'infinitely
before'.

Ib. p. 159.

That he 'being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God', &c.--Phil. ii. 8, 9.

I should be inclined to adopt an interpretation of the unusual phrase
[Greek: harpagmon] somewhat different both from the Socinian and the
Church version:--"who being in the form of God did not 'think equality
with God a thing to be