d PRINCETON, N. J. <f> 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 BX 7301 S955 
 Summerbeil, N. 1816-1889. 
 Discussion on the Trinity 
 church constitutions and 
 
Digitized by 
 
 the Internet Archive 
 
 
 
 in 2014 
 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/discussionontrinOOsumm_0 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 ON THB 
 
 TRINITY, 
 
 HUMAN DEPEAVITY. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 N. SUMMERBELL, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CINCINNATI, OHIO, 
 AND 
 
 REV. J. M. FLOOD, 
 
 XX-P&ESIDBNT OF THE OHIO CONFERENCE OF THE M. P. CHURCH. 
 
 HELD IN CENTREVILLE, OHIO, FROM AUGUST 2, TO AUGUST 9, 1854. 
 
 COMPRISING 
 
 Fifty-dght alternate Speeches of Thirty Mimdes each. 
 
 REPORTED 
 
 BY BENN PITMAN, PHONOGRAPHEE. 
 
 EXAMINED AND CORRECTED BY THE PARTIES. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 PUBLISHED BY APPLEGATE & CO., 
 No. 43 Main Street. 
 1 8 5 4. 
 
TO THE READEE. 
 
 The Preliminary Letters, Rules, and arrangements, are as 
 foreign to the subject, as uninteresting to the public; we there- 
 fore leave the speakers to make their own introduction ; only 
 prefacing it with the following, from Discussion, page 432 : 
 
 "The congregations were usually large, and much of the time, 
 very much crowded. All the meetings were opened with prayer, 
 and a general religious interest pervaded the whole." 
 
 **The Discussion between Messrs. Flood and Summerbell, at 
 Centreville, on the Trinity, <fec., which commenced August 2, and 
 closed August 9, 1854, was reported by me : and after the speeches 
 of each party had been submitted to the respective speakers for cor- 
 rection, were delivered to the printer in sealed packages. 
 
 BENN PITMAN." 
 
 " Cincinnati, 0., October 13, 1854. 
 The above packages have been received by me, sealed; and opened here. 
 
 C. F. O'Driscoll." 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year Eighteen Hund- 
 red and Fifty-four, by N. Summerbell, in the Clerk's office of the 
 District Court of the United States, for tlie District of Ohio, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 PEOPOSITION FOR DISCUSSIOJ^. 
 
 "Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of the 
 Methodist Protestant Church, especially with regard to the 
 equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, 
 glory and eternity, contrary to the teaching of the Word of 
 Grod? " X. ScMJfERBELL affirms ; Rev. J. M. Flood denies. 
 
 Wednesday Moening, Aug. 2, 1854. 
 
 After prayer, Mr. Siimmerbell said : We meet on this 
 occasion to advance the cause of truth, and with no de- 
 sire to criminate each other as debaters. We were chosen 
 by other parties to conduct this discussion. Xo one chal- 
 leno;ed. This is true at least in my case, and I have no 
 doubt my brother can say the same. For the cause 
 which I am here to argue, I bespeak your most candid 
 consideration. We have for a great number of years 
 been a persecuted people. The time has been when we 
 would not have been allowed to live, much less hold this 
 discussion. In a letter just received from a friend, urging 
 me to forsake my laith, he says, " If you were living un- 
 der some laws, you would have to suffer death for your 
 heresy, as did Michael Servetus." We have for centu- 
 ries thus suffered : but thanks be to God, we live now in 
 a free country, which guarantees to its citizens the right 
 to think as theii- conscience dictates. Do not, my friends, 
 be prejudiced against my cause, because I am not, on 
 what you consider, the orthodox side of this question. It 
 is no advantage to me to be on the wrong side ; and did 
 I think this wrong, I could, if I desired, obtain admis- 
 
 3 
 
 NOV I860 
 HSOLOGICi:L 
 
4 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 eion into a more popular denonunation. The other side 
 would probably admit me, if I could admit their faith. 
 But I am honest where I am : weak it may be, but claim- 
 ing your indulgence therefore all the more. I have not 
 the advantage of the theological literature of my oppo- 
 nent on my side, nevertheless, I hope to draw from those 
 ^mtings, the admission that we are safe, and to substan- 
 tiate from their own admissions, that, notwithstanding all 
 our trials and persecutions, we are an Orthodox, Evan- 
 gelical, and Biblical people; that our views are right; 
 that they are the same which God commanded through 
 his prophets and apostles, and that were held by the early 
 fathers of the Christian church, as well as by a goodly 
 portion of the Christian world at the present time. 
 
 But first, I will give you the opinions of some of the 
 leading writers on my opponent's side, in reference to the 
 Trinity — the propriety of making it a test of fellowship, 
 and the possibility of proving it from the Bible. 
 
 These are great and learned men, and are considered 
 by many as authorities on these questions ; and if they 
 can not prove the existence of the Trinity from the Bible, 
 yet, my brother, "perhaps^ can. 
 
 Dr. McAU says, We know of no greater heresy than 
 unnecessarily to divide good men. Let the bigot frown; 
 let the base and interested partisan seek to cover with 
 unmerited dishonor, all who can not lend themselves to 
 support his darling peculiarities, or his still more darling 
 emoluments ; but the Christian should endeavor to con- 
 ciliate, in love, etc." Dis. v. 1; 260, 300. 
 
 Bobt. Hall attributes the divisions to " the disposition 
 to found their [Christian] union on the 'hay, wood and 
 stubble' of human inventions, or disreputable tenets in- 
 stead of the Eternal Kock, the faith once delivered to the 
 saints." Hall's Works, ii, 10, 468. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge declared concerning one called an Arian, 
 whom some wished excluded from his church, " that he 
 would sacrifice his place, and even his life, rather than fi^x 
 such a mark of discoui-agement upon one, who, whatever 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 his doctrinal sentiments were, appeared to be a true 
 Christian." Dr. Kippis in Biog. Britannica, Yol. v, p. 307. 
 
 Dr. Watson, the pride of orthodoxy, said of the Duke 
 of Grafton, who denied the Trinity, " I was happy to see 
 a person of his rank professing with intelligence and sin- 
 cerity, Christian principles. If any one thinks that a 
 Unitarian is not a Christian — I think otherwise.*' Bp. 
 "Watson's Life, Yol i, p. 75, 6 ; ii, 227. Dre. Gibson, 
 Turner, Parr, Chalmers, etc., express themselves the same. 
 
 The most intelligent men testify that it is not essential 
 to salvation. Bishop Tomline says, in his Elements of 
 Christian Tlieology, Yol. ii, p. 222, " Our church (of 
 England) would have acted more wisely if it had not 
 adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian creed." 
 
 Bp. Watson remarks on the expediency of revising the 
 Liturgy, p. 67, ''The Trinity, as explained by Athanasius 
 or any other man, I can not look upon to be so funda- 
 mental as not to be revised or exchanged.'' Also, 
 " Ever}^ human explication may be an error ; and what 
 may be an error, can not, and ought not to be imposed as 
 a fundamental Christian verity." 
 
 Limborch, Theo. Christianity, says, p. 5, 9 and ix, 10, 
 speaking of the obscurity of the doctrine ; '* It can not be, 
 that the belief of such doctrines is essential to salvation." 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, one of the highest bishops in the 
 Church of England, says of the Athanasian creed, " The 
 account is in nowise satisfactory. I wish that we were 
 well rid of it." Simpson, in his Appeal, p. 356, says, 
 " And so do I, for the sake of our common Christianity." 
 
 Simpson, App., p. 357, prays in his old age for the 
 Lord to pardon him for having read it in church in 
 his youth, and really renounced his living sooner than 
 read it in the church of England in his latter years. 
 
 Le Clerc, Insp. Scrip., p. 108, says, Men have thought 
 it an honor to be styled orthodox, — to be linked to a 
 part}', — and to load others with calumnies, and damn by 
 an absolute authority." 
 
6 
 
 DISCTJSSIOX ON THE TRIXITY. 
 
 Bp. Watson asks. Life. vol. ii, p. 87, 88, ''What is 
 this thing called orthodoxy, which mars the fortunes of 
 honest men i 
 
 Tillotson says, Yol. i, 19, " We desire no better evi- 
 dence that any man is wrong, than to hear him de- 
 clare against reason, and so acknowledge that reason is 
 against him."' 
 
 Dr. Wm. Sherlock, in his Knowledge of Christ, ch. 3, 
 sec. 3, says, ** Is it not intolerable presumption for men 
 to shape religion according to their fancies and humors, 
 and stuff it with an infinite number of orthodox proposi- 
 tions, none of which are to be found, in express terms, 
 in the Scriptures, but only pretended to be deduced from 
 some little hints P &c. 
 
 Hawies thought Dr. Samuel Clark, an English bishop, 
 as bad as a deist, but the Church of England retained 
 him as one of their brightest ornaments. See Hawies, i, 
 p. 253. 
 
 My brother will obserye that I quote from high author- 
 ities — authors who are uniyersally acknowledged to 
 be orthodox. You see the views I take are right. A 
 person who does not belieye in the Trinity is set down as 
 a blasphemer. " Dr. Clark is as much a blasphemer as 
 Socinus.-' {Ihid.) 
 
 That the Trinity is not according to reason is admitted 
 by themselves. 
 
 " Salmeron says, Yol. iv, p. 505, " The Trinity is com- 
 pletely hidden from our natural light.'' 
 
 Dr.' Owen says, *' What is there in the whole book 
 that nature, at first sight, doth more recoil at than the 
 doctrine of the Trinity I 
 
 He here admits that nature recoils at it ; and that it is 
 contrary to reason. 
 
 Dr. Wiseman observes, Who will say, that by any 
 stretch of imagination or reason, he can see it possible 
 how three persons in one God can be but one Godhead. 
 If the Eucharist, which is more clearly laid down than 
 
BISCUSSIOK ON THE TKINITT. 
 
 the Trinity, is to be rejected on that ground, (reason) how 
 is it possible, for a moment, to support the Trinity ? " — 
 Let. Doc. p. 370. 
 
 Dr. South said, " Were it not to be adored as a mys- 
 tery, it would be exploded as a contradiction." — Ser. 
 vol. iii, p. 240. 
 
 Dr. Stewart says, " The Athanasian and Nicene creeds 
 destroy the full and proper equality of the persons in the 
 Godhead. Tiie Son is made dependent on the Father ; 
 the Holy Ghost also." — Com, on Rom. Exc. l. 
 
 Luther, at the time of the Reformation, was opposed 
 to the introduction of the Trinity into their code of 
 belief. He says, (Rat. Laton. ii, 240), " Let wretched 
 mortals give honor to God, and either confess that they 
 do not understand his words, or cease to profane them 
 with their own new and peculiar expressions." 
 
 You will not deny that this is a new and peculiar 
 expression. ^ 
 
 Calvin says, (Tractat. Thol., p. 796) " I dislike this 
 vulgar prayer, ' Holy Trinity, one God ! have mercy on 
 us,' as altogether savoring of barbarism. We repudi- 
 ate such expressions, as being not only insipid, but 
 profane." 
 
 Of course, he was writing against the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Dr. Maclaine, Mosheim's Ec. Hist. 5th Cent., part ii, 
 chap. 5, note, says of the Trinity, ^' The use of this word, 
 (Trinity) and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach 
 either no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and 
 peace, without promoting peace or knowledge. It has 
 produced heresies of the veiy worst kind." 
 
 Carlisle says, (Con. Apud., 41) "I confess that I have 
 ever disliked the use of the word Trinity, in prayer to God." 
 
 Bishop Beveridge says, " The Trinity, though fre- 
 quently intimated in the Old Testament, yet it is a hard 
 matter to rightly understand it without the New Testa- 
 ment, insomuch that the Jews, (fee, could never make 
 this an article of faith." — Private Thoughts, vol. ii, p. 66. 
 
8 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 I want you to understand, that they think they never 
 could gather it from the Old Testament, and that the 
 Jews could never have made it an article of faith. 
 
 Says Bishop Burnett, " Take the Old Testament with- 
 out the New, and it must be confessed that it will not be 
 easy to prove this article (Trinity)." — Expon. 39th Art., 
 art. 1, p. 39. 
 
 These are great men, of considerable experieqce, and 
 though they cannot prove this doctrine by the Old Testa- 
 ment, my brother perhaps can ! A peculiarity of the 
 defenders of this doctrine is, that they are all sure that 
 nobody ever yet has properly defended the Trinity, or can 
 do it, but themselves ; and, on a careful review, their 
 friends all admit that they have not done it. They 
 mostly admit that it is not in the Old Testament ; others 
 admit that it is not in the Gospels ; some, that it is not 
 in the Acts ; others, that it is not in the Epistles ; and 
 others, that it is not revelation but tradition. Some give 
 up all texts but 1 Tim. iii, 16, and 1 John v, 7 ; and 
 Griesbach, Barnes, IS'ewton, Dr. A. Clarke, and hosts 
 of others, admit that they (the orthodox, pious souls !) 
 forged these. But, my friend here thinks that he can 
 prove it all from the Bible ! If this doctrine of the 
 Trinity were true, God, in making a revelation, would 
 have named it somewhere. It would be necessary in 
 writing your will, if you left property to your child, to 
 name that child somewhere in your will. So God, in 
 making a revelation of an important doctrine, upon 
 which our salvation depended, would not have left it to 
 be inferred from ambiguous texts. My friend must find 
 the Trinity named in the Word of God, and he must so 
 define the texts as to make them mean all that his creed 
 makes them mean. I am sure that the highest honors 
 are in store for him if he can accomplish this. I'll 
 guarantee him a cardinal's cap from mother Eome. 
 
 Let us now direct our attention to the creed, or consti- 
 tution, as my brother would prefer to call it. 
 
 Art. 1. There is but one living and true God, with- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 9 
 
 out body or parts." To understand this I will read their 
 exposition. 
 
 " The Bible is very clear on the doctrine of but one 
 God, &c., but as soon as we open it again, and in other 
 places, another doctrine is presented, (the Trinity) which 
 seems to conflict with this first statement." — Notes on the 
 Twenty-five Articles of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 by Rev. A. A. Jimeson, M. D., in which they are 
 carefully considered and supported, page 65. 
 
 Here the supporter and defender frankly owns that the 
 Trinit}'- is another doctrine^ which seems to conflict with 
 the first, which is very clear. Now, a doctrine of the 
 Bible should be found so clearly expressed, at least, as 
 that it may certainly be found by tlie sincere Bible stu- 
 dent ; such, however, Mr. Jimeson admits is not the 
 case. He says, " No one doubts the existence of but one 
 God, who has carefully studied the Bible ; but there are 
 persons who not only doubt, but deny the doctrine of 
 three persons in this one God." — Page 66. 
 
 Why it is that even those who carefully study the 
 Bible deny this doctrine, is further explained by Mr. 
 Jimeson, where he says of the Trinity, " This term is 
 not found in the Bible, it is true, but it is a very appro- 
 priate term to express this great doctrine." — Page 66. 
 
 But many will say, though it conflicts with the unity 
 of God, and be not easily found, and though the term is 
 not in the Bible at all, yet the doctrine is surely 
 positively stated in some one text. No, Dr. Jimeson 
 admits that it is not. He says : 
 
 " As nothing positive on this doctrine, (of Trinity) 
 can be drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, our fuller and 
 final proof must be found in the Christian Scriptures. 
 Even here, the doctrine of the Trinity, in all its extent 
 and modifications is taught in no single passage." — P. 69 
 and Nean. i, 572, says the same. 
 
 Nor is Jimeson peculiar iu thus admitting — while 
 trying to prove the Trinity by the Bible — that it is not 
 revealed in it. Dr. Goodman says, " Scarce the footstep 
 
10 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 of the three pei-sons is distinctly seen in the creation or 
 the Jaw." — Con. Apnd. 43. 
 
 Bp. Bevcridge says, " Though frequently intimated in 
 the Old Testament, yet it is a hard matter to rightly un- 
 derstand it without the New^: inasmuch as the Jews 
 could never make this an article of faith." — Private 
 Thoughts, ii, 26. 
 
 Dr. South, Dr. Longley, Bishop Burnet and others, 
 and Dr. Clarke think that the distinction of persona 
 was not fully evident till after the incarnation. Heb. i, 
 2. — Commentary . 
 
 The remark of Dr. Jimeson, on page 28 of his "Illus- 
 tration and defence of the Articles," is worthy of all notice. 
 He says : — 
 
 "The doctrine of one living God is eminently the 
 doctrine of the Scriptures. Beyond these the specula- 
 tions of philosophy have been confused and of atheisti- 
 cal tendency." — Dr. Jimeson on the Twenty-five Articles. 
 
 But let us further examine the article itself 
 
 Art. I. " There is but one living and true God, without 
 body or parts." This, Dr. Jimeson admits, plainly con- 
 tradicts the Bible. He says, page 40 : — 
 
 "But it maybe objected that the article contradicts 
 many of the descriptions of God in the Bible. It is ad- 
 mitted that it does contradict those passages where God 
 is described as having a seat on a throne ; as walking, as 
 speaking, as having a face, eyes, hands, etc.; but these 
 descriptions of God are employed in condescension to 
 our feeble and imperfect conceptions of what God is, etc.;" 
 but the Doctor's explanation is not ingenious. He thinks 
 that God is spoken of as having a body in condescension 
 to our w^eakness ; but affirms that such statements of the 
 Bible are untrue, and mislead our weakness : and of 
 course, thinks our weakness better guarded by their rejec- 
 tion. 
 
 Art. L " Without ho dy or parts.'''' So says the creed ; 
 but God, who never formed the creed, says, " I will put 
 thee in the cleft of a rock, and will cover thee with my 
 
, DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 11 
 
 Iiand while I pass by, md I will take away my hand and 
 thou shalt see my back parts : but my face shall not be 
 seen." — Ex. xxxiii, 22. Comment is nnnecessary ; those 
 who love God will believe him : but those who prefer the 
 creed will- believe it. 
 
 Article 1. says that God is without hody / but Article 
 in. says, that he took again his body, with all things per- 
 taining to man's nature. Without parts, yet "in unit}'!" 
 Unity without parts. " In unity of this Godhead there 
 are three persons." Here is a nnion without parts. 
 Three persons, and but one God. With a body and all 
 things pertaining to man's nature, yet without body or 
 parts. 
 
 Art. I. "Three pei^ons of one substance, power and 
 eternity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Now con- 
 cerning this one substance, power and eternity, we wish 
 to know, how they really understand it ? Dr. Jimeson 
 calls it : 
 
 " God and the two OTHER persons that compose the 
 Trinity." Mark you ! God and the two other persons. 
 So it seems that tliere are two other persons beside God 
 in the Trinity. Hear Jimeson again, p. 67 : " It is not a 
 question that God is the Creator, — but that other persons 
 are in the Godhead." That is, other persons beside God, 
 or other persons who are not God I They admit, of 
 course, that Christ is one of the other persons : but that 
 they are not satisfied that he is really God himself, is 
 proved by their saying, pp. 74, 85. Phillip, ii, 6, speaks 
 of a person "equal with God." The original is, " like 
 God." See Macknight. It is as evident to every school- 
 boy, that no person would be declared to be equal with 
 himself, as that God has no equal ; yet by trying to prove 
 Christ equal with God, they in effect admit, that he is 
 neither that God with whom they compare him, nor 
 equal to him whose infinite greatness is unquestioned. 
 
 Art. I. " Three pei-sons of one substance, power and 
 eternity — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Now since 
 their candidates are required to study Clarke, let us 
 
12 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 note him to see if they believe in this eternity of the 
 on. 
 
 Clarke says, " I cannot close in with the common view 
 of what is called the eternal sonship of Christ. I know 
 not of any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the 
 divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to 
 be the Son of God ; " and states frankly, that he told 
 Wesley, that he could not admit the divinity of Christ, 
 if he had to receive the common doctrine of the eternal 
 Bonship. So that the Son, instead of being eternal 
 and equal with God, is, according to Clarke, only about 
 1800 years old. Mark that ! — Comment is unneces- 
 sary. Tliat they do not believe the Son equal, even 
 where they admit his divinity, is sufficiently proved by 
 the whole tenor of their worship, as I shall show in the 
 future. They may admit the Logos equal ; but the creed 
 says the Son. Tiie doctrine of the Trinity is not, the 
 Father, Logos, and Holy Ghost, but the Father, Son and 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 Mr. Flood's First reply: 
 
 1 appear before you to respond to the remarks of my 
 worthy brother, on the proposition submitted for discus- 
 sion. First, I invite your attention to the preliminary 
 remarks which my brother expressed ; to which senti- 
 ments I cordially respond, and hope we have not come 
 together for the purpose of criminating each other, but 
 to dwell together in this place as brethren, while we are 
 engaged in the investigation of this important subject. 
 He says, w^ith regard to his denomination, that they have 
 been a persecuted people for a long time, but he hopes 
 that his views may be received here without prejudice ; 
 but he affirms that, at a former period of the Christian 
 church, they were in the majority, but that he has now 
 the sad misfortune to be found in the minority ; and he 
 himself ardently desires, in view of these unfavorable 
 circumstances, that he should not be the subject, or vic- 
 tim, of your unrestrained prejudices ; and 1 would put 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 13 
 
 in a plea in his behalf. He may be assured, that he 
 will not be persecuted by any portion of our friends now 
 
 - present, from the fact that they happen to be in the 
 majority, and have come, as I understand, to be spoken 
 of here as ortiiodox. He says further, that in times past 
 they have been persecuted even to death ; that must have 
 been wlien their opinions ceased to be regarded as true ; 
 but those who will take the pains to search into the early 
 history of the church of Christ, will find, in the fourth 
 century, in the year 328, or thereabouts, an account of a 
 controversy on this subject. Noiu^ orthodoxy is in the 
 ascendant ; then^ Arianism was in the ascendant. I am 
 happy to find my friend so well posted in all that is 
 likely to be adverted to in this discussion ; then he need 
 ^ not be in the slightest fear that his arguments will 
 remain unanswered. I must say, however, at the outset, 
 that I gave this brother notice, that I would be here, but 
 I did not receive from him the slightest intimation that 
 he would be here ; but I find him liere, with documents 
 regularly written out, from which he quotes certain 
 authorities, which I cannot now run over, showing a 
 spirit of tolerance, in modern divines, toward Unitarian- 
 ism, Arianism, or whatever other shade of diversity 
 might have existed between professors, in which great 
 men have said, and very justly, that good men should 
 
 #not be debarred from communion with the church of 
 Christ, or deprived of fellowship, because of honest dif- 
 ferences of opinion existing on this subject. The senti- 
 ments of these authors I endorse ; so that my good 
 brother and I will have no controvei*sy on that subject ; 
 but, he remarks, that Luther did not desire, at the time 
 of the Reformation, that the doctrine should be intro- 
 duced into their creed. It was not designed, on the part 
 of my brother, to intimate that Luther was not a Trinita- 
 rian ! There can be no question that Luther was, at 
 every period of his ministry, a stanch supporter of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and fully believed in the equality 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as stated in the 
 
14 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Gospel ; but. on the ground of expediency, and to avoid 
 a war of words, in the times that tried men's souls, 
 Luther might have been unwilling that that disputed 
 question should be started, and thus, possibly, defeat the 
 great work they had in view. It gives evidence that the 
 great reformer was a man of tolerance, and did not 
 desire to chain the consciences of men. or to curb them 
 in a free, intellectual pursuit of divine truth ; he assumes 
 that the upholders of the Trinity have a peculiar method 
 of proving their doctrines — a method differing from all 
 others ; and when they have gone through with it, a want 
 of conviction that the position has been proven, or even 
 that they themselves have succeeded in proving their 
 position. 
 
 I will now venture upon the proof of this doctrine of 
 the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in my 
 peculiar way. The proposition, standing in the form as 
 presented, rebutting evidence is admissible. In this 
 connection, it is propter to make reference to authoi-s 
 quoted by my opponent ; for instance, he quotes from 
 Ji meson, a portion of his treatise on the Articles under 
 consideration, for illustration. I stand here to defend 
 Jimesou. I stand here upon Bible grounds. Is the 
 Bible in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity ? I admit 
 that the term Trinity does not occur in the Bible, but I 
 do not admit that my opiX)nent is correct in stating thatss 
 the term, in this connection, is modern ; it is a term that 
 has long been in use, and employed in this controvei-sj 
 as far back as the days of Arius, in the fourth century; 
 however, it is not to be res]3ected on account of its anti- 
 quity, any more than any other phrase expressive of an 
 important truth : according to Mr. Webster, in reference 
 to the character of the Deity, it signifies tJcree in one. a 
 union of three persons in the Godhead, the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, and, of coui-se. as 
 it is employed in this sense. I use it as a Scripture phrase, 
 and as expressive of a Scripture doctrine. Hence, 
 (though I am not tenacious of the phraseology.) I am 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 15 
 
 very tenacious for the tmth, which that phrase represents 
 and expresses. There are several terms in the proposi- 
 tion to be considered : The first, is the term Trinity, 
 which signifies three in one, and is expressive of three 
 distinct |)ersons in one undivided Godhead : the second 
 term. Godhead, represents the divine natm-e, as a whole, 
 as possessed of three persons. This term does occur in 
 the Scriptures, and will be found in Komans i, 20, 
 " Even his eternal power and Godhead ; " in Golossians 
 ii, 9, " for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the God- 
 head bodily.'' Here we have, in two places, the ex-pres- 
 Bion Godhead ; " in the first, Christ is spoken of, in 
 connection with his eternal power and Godhead ; Christ s/ 
 is equal with the Father in power ; here it is asserted, in 
 emphatic terms, ''his eternal power and Godhead." 
 This term relates to the infinite, eternal, and immutable 
 nature of the Deity, the embodiment of which dwells in 
 Jesus Christ, and, I assume, nowhere else ; that there is 
 one God, the Fatlier, Son, and Holy Ghost ; that these 
 three are one, in substance, glory, and eternity. But, 
 my brother goes on to state, that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is not apparent from the Hebrew Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament, and that it has been admitted by Trinita- 
 rians to be so. I join issue with my brother here. I 
 think that the doctrine of the Trinity, though not 
 expressed in the same plain phraseology in the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, as found in the New, is, never- 
 theless, clearly to be inferred from nj^merous passages, and 
 that there can be no question that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity was understood by the Old Testament believers ; 
 received, and received as essential doctrine. Genesis i, 
 26. — "God said. Let us make man in our image, and 
 after our likeness." The use of a plurality of persons, 
 in this expression, is evidence sufficiently conclusive that 
 more than one person is understood in this great work 
 of creation ; " let us make man after our image, after 
 our likeness." Genesis xi, 7. — "Let us go down and 
 confound their language;" this relates to the purpose 
 
16 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 of God to go down and confound the language of 
 the builders of the tower of Babel ; at the time of his 
 going down to confound their language, the address is 
 made in the same form. Xow, had there not been a 
 plurality of persons, the language would have been in 
 the singular, will go down." He speaks as though 
 there were a consultation held by difierent persons, with 
 regard to the accomplishment of that work, and the con- 
 clusion expressed is in these words, " let us go down, 
 and confound their language." For the present, I design 
 only taking these authorities from the Old Testament 
 Scriptures ; I assume, however, that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, in the Scriptures of the Xew Testament, though 
 not expressed in these words, is, nevertheless, so fully 
 expressed, that no other just conclusion can possibly be 
 arrived at. That there are three persons constituting 
 the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the 
 language of the benediction in 2d Corinthians xiii, 
 14, plainly teaches. The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
 Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here three persons are 
 spoken of ; if there was but one pei-son in the Godhead, 
 why employ these three appellations, all of which have 
 a relation to the belief as expressed in the language 
 employed. The grace and favor of Christ, the love of 
 God, as expressed to you in your redemption and salva- 
 tion, and recovei-y from sin, let that love abide, let it 
 ever remain, the communion of the Holy Ghost, by 
 which you enjoy the evidence of your acceptance with 
 God, and fellowship with the Father; and with his Son 
 Jesus Christ, as the efficient agent in the great work of 
 human salvation, let him abide in his sanctifying in- 
 fluence with you all. With regard, then, to the power 
 of Christ, the language is sufficiently expressive in the 
 Old Testament, as well as in the New, to show that the 
 equality of the Father was the received doctrine of the 
 church, under the old dispensation. Psalms ii, 7. 
 " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee this 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 17 
 
 language was uniformly admitted, by the Jews, to be 
 applicable to the Messiah. Isaiah xlviii, 16. — " And 
 how the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit thus 
 saith : the Lord, the Eedeemer, the Holy One of Israel." 
 Chap. Ixi, 1. — "The Spirit of^the Lord is upon me, for 
 the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto 
 the meek, and hath sent me to bind up the broken 
 hearted — to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the 
 opening of the prison to those that are bound." Here 
 one person is speaking of another, whose spirit was 
 resting upon him ; "The spirit of the Lord is upon me." 
 This language corresponds with that employed by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, in the quotation selected from Isaiah, 
 in the first public discourse which he preached, when he 
 quotes these words. Here one divine person is resting 
 upon another. I shall now proceed to notice a few re- 
 marks made by my brother on the character of God. 
 
 " Without body or parts." In the first proposition, 
 God the Father is without body or parts. This is the 
 doctrine of Methodists, as received and understood by 
 them ; and it is this I stand here to defend to-day. As 
 to a physical body, or parts, (for this has been alluded 
 to,) it is not so understood, physically. God is not, as a 
 man, possessed of body and parts. The term " parts " 
 is here used in this restricted sense, and not to the ex- 
 tent my friend would give it. That Moses, on one 
 occasion, saw the Lord Jehovah in a physical form, I 
 presume no one will assert. The language of the apostle 
 is this, "No man hath seen God at any time ;" " Lord, 
 show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Jesus replied, 
 "Have I been so long a time with you, Philip, and hast 
 thou not known me ? " The Saviour employs different 
 language when referring to himself; he uses the term, 
 '" known me." He does not say that God was an object 
 of sense, because he did not possess body, or parts, as 
 the essential being ; but he refers the disciples to him- 
 self. " Have I been so long a time with you, and hast 
 thou not known me^ Philip ; know ye now, that I am in 
 2 
 
18 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 the Father, and the Father in me.*' Ton have here be- 
 fore you the express image of the Father's glory, and of 
 his person, the only manifestation that God has made of 
 himself, you have in me. My brother then proceeds to 
 make a quotation from Ji^ieson, and from two or three 
 other authors, and then assumes that there is a God, and 
 that there ai*e two other pei-sons, and these are brought 
 in, finally, to constitute the Godhead, and, in further 
 proof of this doubtful position, he says. Dr. Clarke does 
 not admit the eternity of the Son of God. He could not 
 believe that God had^ begotten the divine nature of Jesus 
 Christ, xsow, I occupy precisely the position that Dr. 
 Clarke does, and find myself in very good company. I 
 therefore claim that the word which was in the beginning 
 with the Father, was God ; is not the person he alluded 
 to as begotten of the Father from the womb of the Vir- 
 gin Maiy, but, that the man Christ Jesus, is the person 
 alluded to as begotten ; and in this sense, he is the Son 
 of God ; that the word, or logos^ which was in the be- 
 ginning with the Father, who in his person is equal in 
 substance, power, and glory, and eternity, with the 
 Father. 
 
 Mr. Su^niEKBELL's Second address: 
 
 My friend says, that he agrees with Clarke ; but Clarke 
 says the Son is not eternal, and the creed says the Son is 
 God, the second person in the Trinity. Then he does 
 not believe that the second person in the Trinity is eter- 
 nal ? He says the word is eternal ; but the word is not 
 the Son, and the Son, according to Dr. Clarke, is not God 
 at all. He had better let Clarke alone. 
 
 He says, God has not a physical body ; but his creed 
 says that he has. He quotes Philip, who says, Show 
 us the Father." I answer, they could not see the invis- 
 ible Spirit ; they could only see the physical body. Was 
 that God ? Then he has two Gods, one with a body, and 
 one without a body. He quotes, " I am in the Father, 
 and the Father in me ; " but Jesus adds, " they in me, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 19 
 
 and I in thee ; that they may all be perfect in one." And 
 this, my brother quotes to prove the Trinity ! He next 
 quotes, " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ; " and 
 here he has one divine person resting upon another di- 
 vine person. Why is this ? He says, that Christ has all 
 power. But, Matthew xxviii, 18, Christ says, "All 
 power is given unto me, etc." In Psalms ii, 7, God says 
 to the Son, " Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen 
 for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
 for thy possession." He quotes Corinthians xiii, 14, 
 " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God 
 the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost." In 
 answer to which, I refer him to Rev. i, 4, " Grace be unto 
 you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and 
 which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are 
 before his throne." Here are more than three persons. 
 Let my brother explain how grace is invoked from seven 
 spirits? Genesis xi, 7, " Let us go down;" but I can 
 also say, let us do this and that, and yet I am no Trinity. 
 God, doubtless, " spake unto his Son, by whom also he 
 made the worlds," Heb. i, 1, 2 ; but my brother says that 
 the Son is only eighteen hundred years old ; but Paul, 
 who is better authority, says that God made the world 
 by his Son; who was the brightness of his glory, and 
 the express image of his person. My brother says, the 
 Trinity may be clearly inferred from the Old Testament ; 
 but he does not find the place. He says, the agency in- 
 cludes a plurality ; but I answer, God could not he 
 another jperson^s agent. He says, that in Christ dwells 
 the fullness of the Godhead bodily ; that is, the embodi- 
 ment of the Divine nature, Father, Son and Holy Ghost 
 dwells in Christ. Thus he makes the three persons in 
 the Godhead to dwell in Christ; instead of Christ being 
 one person in the Godhead ! He says, that " Godhead " 
 is mentioned in the Bible ; true, it is, but it is not said 
 that three persons dwell in the Godhead. He then goes 
 into the proof of the Trinity, without answering my ar- 
 
20 
 
 DISCUSSIOlSr ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 guments on the creed. Why is this ? He admits that the 
 word Trinity is not in the Bible, but claims that it is of 
 ancient origin ; but this ancient origin is ancient heathen 
 origin — according to Clarke, John i, 1 . My brother says, 
 that it was in the Christian church as far back as Arius, 
 but it was not in the Nicene creed. Why was it not there ? 
 He quotes Webster ; but ISToah Webster was a Trinita- 
 rian. Mosheim says, that the council of Constantinople 
 (A. D., 381) gave the finishing touch to the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, which the council of jS"ice left imjxirfect ! 
 He thinks that I could not have quoted Luther correctly. 
 I did not say that Luther denied the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity, but he was opposed to the use of the word ; and I 
 say, he renounced more than my brother will. Luther 
 would have rejected it, but he retained the word to get rid 
 of the imputation of Arianisra, which he knew his ene- 
 mies would be ready enough to charge him with ; just as 
 my brother gives me the name of Arian for rejecting the 
 word Trinity. He says, that he wrote me a letter ; this 
 letter I received on Saturday night, before starting for 
 this place on Monday morning ; and, consequently, it was 
 received too late to send an answer to him ; but he set the 
 time himself He appeals to Mosheim to show that the 
 Arians persecuted when they were in the ascendant. I 
 deny that we are Arians ; though I admit that we are 
 generally called so in history. I have not said that v^e 
 were once in the majority ; but that those who hold our 
 sentiments were. I will now resume my argument, and 
 will, in the first place, give nineteen proofs that the Trin- 
 itarians do not honor the Son and the Holy Ghost as 
 equal icith the Father : 
 
 First. They place the Father first in the Trinity, and 
 the Son second ! 
 
 Second. Their system allows of no atonement to God 
 the Son ! 
 
 Third. They have no mediator between them and God 
 the Son ! 
 
DISCUSSION" ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 21 
 
 Fourth. The most favorable view of their theory 
 makes God the Son, the mediator between God the Father 
 and men ! 
 
 Fifth. Their God the Son is not self-existent, biit be- 
 gotten before all worlds ; {see Athanasian and Ni-cene 
 cre-eds.) but God the Father is self existent I 
 
 Sixth. Their God the Son prays ; but God the Father 
 does not ! 
 
 SevejitJi. They say that their God the Son has a body, 
 and was a man ; views derogatory to the ti'ue character 
 of God, according to their own creed or constitution ! 
 
 Eighth. They say that their God the Son died to recon- 
 cile his Father; thus honoring God the Father by the 
 sacrifice of God the Son ! 
 
 Ninth. They do not pray to the Son in the name of 
 the Father, as they do to the Father in the Son's name ! 
 
 Tenth. The Father does not plead with the Son, as 
 the Son does with the Father I 
 
 Eleventh. The Son does not exalt the Father ! 
 
 Twelfth. They do not pray to the Holy Ghost, as mnch 
 as they do to the Father ! 
 
 Thirteenth. They do not pray to the Holy Ghost in the 
 name of the Son ! 
 
 Fourteenth. They do not offer any sacrifice to the 
 Holy Ghost ! 
 
 Fifteenth. They do not have any mediator between 
 them and the Holy Ghost ! 
 
 Sixteenth. That they really consider the Son and Holy 
 Ghost as inferior to God, or not really God, is proved by 
 their thanking God for the gift of his Son, and praying 
 to God to give his Spirit ! 
 
 Seventeenth. Their continued effort to prove the Son 
 equal to the Father, shows that the Father occupies a 
 superior place in their system, and they acknowledge the 
 inferiority of the Son, even in the efibrt to prove him 
 equal ! 
 
 Eighteenth. Jimeson on the Tv:enty-five Articles^ p. 
 67, says, " The divine nature of God^ and of the iv:o 
 
22 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 OTHER persons tliat compose the Trinity;" language 
 which shows a consciousness of inferiority in the author's 
 mind. 
 
 Nineteenth. Clarke, on Hebrews, chap, i, positively 
 denies the eternal sonship of Christ, but thinks that the 
 son of Mary, that is, the man, is called God ; yet posi- 
 tively affirms that the angel does not give the appellation 
 of Son to the divine nature, but only to the human. But 
 let us proceed with the creed. 
 
 Art. n. The Son who is the very and eternal 
 
 God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature, 
 etc., so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
 the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one 
 person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very 
 God, and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, 
 dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us." By very 
 God, and very man, they mean two persons ; for very 
 God, is, at least, one person, and very man, at least, one 
 other person. Jimeson, p. 86, says, " As God, he 
 (Clirist) existed prior to his human nature, and did not 
 need Immanity as a means, or aid, to his eternal heingP 
 This, then, is one eternal heing independent of human- 
 ity, or the ^''very inan!'^ Again, p. 86 ; As man he was 
 perfect^ and might have existed as other men^ without 
 the divine nature. This, then, is another being. Here 
 are two persons, two whole beings, that could exist inde- 
 pendently of each other, one as God, the other as other 
 men. And my brother said that the person who was 
 with God, in the beginning, was not the person begotten 
 of the Virgin. This, then, is what they mean, when they 
 say, that he has two natures, that he took again his body 
 with all things pertaining to man's nature. They have 
 two beings, and one person not the other person : two who 
 Jimeson says, could have existed independent of each 
 other; and my brother says, that he stands here to defend 
 Jimeson. Two persons ; but neither of them the Son 
 of God. Of these two beings, called very God, and very 
 man, one is God, and the other they call a creature, and 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 2S 
 
 refuse to -worship. The one that was seen, suffered, 
 •was dead, and now pleads for them, they refuse to 
 -worship: but -worship the Divine nature that neither 
 suffered or died for them; but the creed makes both 
 dead. Yery God and very man, -svho truly suflered, -«'a3 
 dead. So the hymn says, " When God^ the mighty 
 maJcer^ diedP 
 
 Difficulties start up here. 1. How they could kill a 
 God -without body or parts ; or, 2. Whether this God 
 that died was some other God beside the God that had 
 DO body or parts. And so they make him inferior to 
 the supreme God, by their own arguments on the mate- 
 riality of God. Jimesou says, God cannot have a 
 body or parts composed of material substance, for this 
 -would exclude him from all places occupied by other 
 material bodies.'' — " God must be -^'ithout body or parts, 
 for a body can not be present in more than one place at 
 the same time," etc., p. 40. 3. At all events, this 
 proves that they think that Christ, -who had a body, is 
 inferior to the God, -^vho is -without body. This they also 
 admit, by saying, that this God and man died to recon- 
 cile his Father to us — of coui*se, the less must die to 
 reconcile the greater. It is thus the creed degrades the 
 Sod of God. 4. The scorn with which they everywhere 
 speak of the materiality of God, or the idea of God having 
 a body, shows that they do not really believe that the 
 Son, who has a body, is their Supreme God. 5. So far 
 from blaming them for denying the doctrine of their 
 "very man" being the invisible God, without body or 
 parts, I praise them for it, and hope that they will soon 
 embrace the whole truth. 6. But I will not dwell on 
 the creed, but sum up some of its contradictions, in a 
 few brief sentences. It says, first : 
 
 Art. I. " There is but one living and ti'ue God, with- 
 out body or parts." 
 
 Illustration \. " Without body." Yet, " Christ, who 
 is the very aud eteroal God," — " did rise again from 
 the dead, and took again his body." 
 
24 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 111. 2. Without parts." Yet, " In unity of this God- 
 head there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost." 
 
 3. " Three persons of one substance, power, and 
 eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
 Yet Clarke says, that the angel does not give the appel- 
 lation of Son of God to the divine nature of Christ. 
 Clarke, Luke i, 35. So that the second person is not 
 divine. 
 
 III. 4. " Of the same eternity." Father and Son 
 both of the same eternity. Clarke says, " Father im- 
 plies, in reference to Son, precedency in time, if not in 
 nature too." Clarke, Luke i, 35. 
 
 111. 5. "Of one substance." And the Son has two 
 whole and perfect natures, Godhead, and manhood, 
 body and human soul : yet all three are of one substance. 
 
 111. 6. " Of one substance." Yet the supreme Being, 
 the living God, (is) independent of matter, either as 
 part of himself, or," etc. " Material substances would 
 exclude him from all places occupied by other material." 
 Jimeson, p. 40. 
 
 "Without body." Yet God the Son has a material 
 body. 
 
 111. 7. " Godhead and manhood were joined together 
 never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, 
 and ver}^ man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, 
 and buried, to reconcile his Father to us." So that the 
 very God was dead and buried : the living and true God 
 was dead ! 
 
 III. 8. " Never to be divided." So that the only God 
 of the universe was united with veiy man in death three 
 days. 
 
 III. 9. " But one living and true God ;" yet he, united 
 to very man, died to reconcile his Father to us. 
 
 III. 10. " To reconcile his Father." That is, the very 
 God died to reconcile the very God's Father — who was 
 dead, or some other God, called the very God's Father — 
 to men. 
 
 III. IL " Christ did truly rise again from the dead, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITT. 
 
 2$ 
 
 and took aofain his body." So that it was not the body 
 of Christ alone, that was dead, but the one Christ, very 
 God, and very man, that took again his body. 
 
 12. Took again his body, with all things per- 
 taining to man's natm-e." That is, the Christ who first 
 arose irom the dead, then took again his body, with all 
 things pertaining to man's nature. So that, beside the 
 Christ that rose again from the dead, there was a body 
 with all things pertaining to man's nature. 
 
 111. 13. The Bible says, that the fullness of the God- 
 head dwelt in Christ : but the Discipline contradicts it, 
 by saying, that the three persons, each of whom is God, 
 and one very man, four real persons, are all in the God- 
 head, instead of the Godhead being in Christ. 
 
 I will now commence an argument to show that Trinita- 
 rians difier among themselves, as much as they do with iis. 
 
 1. Clarke, Luke i, 35, says, that the angel does not 
 give the appellation. Son of God, to the divine nature — 
 that the divine nature could not be born of the Virgin, 
 but tliat the" human nature was born. 
 
 2. The angel, however, contradicts Clarke, saying, that 
 " unto you is born this day, a Saviour, which is Christ 
 the Lord." 
 
 3. But Clarke says, that ''two natures (persons) must 
 ever be distinguished in Christ ; the human nature, in 
 reference to which he is the Son of God, and mferiov to 
 him; and the divine nature, which was from eternity, and 
 equal to God ; " thus ^plainly denying the equality of 
 the Son of God. 
 
 4. Mr. Brown, (of East Genesse Con., K. Y., book 
 sold at M. E. Book Concern, Cin.,) says, " True, God 
 has no equal — it means equal with the Father," pp. 18 
 and 29. So that the Father is not as great as God^ ac- 
 cording to Mr. Brown. 
 
 5. Mr. Mattison, of JST. Y. city M. E. Ch., on Ti'inity, 
 p. 3, says, '* To deny the eternity of the Son, is to deny 
 the eternity of the leather ; one relation cm be no older 
 than the other." 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 6. Clarke, Luke i, 35, says, " Is there any part of 
 Scripture that plainly says that the divine nature of Jesus 
 is the Son of God?" 
 
 7. Matt., p. 141, " The Christian church has always 
 believed that the divine Father had a divine Son, co- 
 equal. 
 
 8. Clarke, Luke i, 35, " If Christ be the Son of God, 
 as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity 
 prior, consequently, superior to him." 
 
 9. Brown says, " He is the Son of God by his miracu- 
 lous conception." 
 
 10. Wood, Bib. Diet., art. Christ, says, "To pretend 
 that he is called the proper, the only begotten Son of God, 
 because of his miraculous conception, is not only ground- 
 less and absurd, but even blasphemous," p. 428. So that 
 one-half of Trinitarians call the other half blasphemers — 
 even Clarke and Barnes. 
 
 11. " The doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ, is, 
 in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous," 
 sa^^s Clarke. 
 
 12. Bp. Watson, p. 30, (543,) " The Creator was the 
 Son of God before he was sent into the world." 
 
 13. Clarke says, " If Christ be the Son of God, as to 
 his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal, for Son im- 
 plies a father^ and the Father is of necessity prior, and 
 consequently superior." — Luke i, 35. 
 
 14. Mattison, p. 74, "Son of God implies absolute 
 divinity, and is no proof of inferiority." 
 
 15. "If," says Clarke, "the divine nature were begot- 
 ten of the Father, then it must be in time ; this destroys 
 the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of 
 his Godhead." 
 
 Clarke positively denies that the So7i is either divine 
 or eternal ; thus destroying the second person in. the 
 Trinity. Hence, they baptize in the name of the Father, 
 and the human nature, and of the Holy Ghost ; and 
 Barnes agrees with him. See Eom. i, and Heb. i. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 27 
 
 Mattison, p. 124, says, " The Son is both a child born, 
 and the mighty God.*' 
 
 Mattison, p. 21. says, To say that the Son is the ever- 
 lasting Father^ or that the mighty God was born, is little 
 less than blasphemy.*' 
 
 Watson, p. 30, (note) refers to Micah v, 12, to prove a 
 twofold birth: and p. 32, says, *' he was iDefore all crea- 
 ted things by generation, not by creation thus plainly 
 contradicting Clarke — and p. 41, that the blood of Christ 
 was the blood of God." 
 
 Mattison, p. 39, says, Trinitarians do not hold to the 
 sufl'erings or death of divinitv^ ; *' but contradicts himself, 
 saying, p. 12S, ''The Word, the second person in Trin- 
 itv — txjcame a sacrifice for sin." As per hymn, '* When 
 God, the mighty Maker, died." 
 
 Watson, p. 30, quotes Prov. xxx, 4, and says, that "it 
 expresses clearly that God had a Son, and makes no ref- 
 erence to his incarnation." 
 
 Thus some contend for the eternity of the Son, in order 
 to save the Trinity ; but others think that there is no 
 Son : so the 
 
 Five Hundred Sketches and Skeletons of Sermons, 
 Heb. vii, 11, p. 498, says of Christ, that 1st. as divine, 
 he had no Father, but is self-existent ; and, 2d, as human, 
 he had no Father ; *' so that he is no Son at all, accord- 
 ing to Tnnitananimi. 
 
 Mb. Flood's Second reply: 
 
 I was pleased to see a disposition, on the part of my 
 brother Summerbell, to approach this subject in his 
 second speech, but I regretted to see a tendency to turn 
 from it at the close. In regard to what certain authoi-s 
 say respecting Luther, that he was undecided, and that 
 he yielded to Melancthon, in regard to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, I shall only be doing simple justice to that great 
 and good divine — to whom, under God, both my brother 
 and myself, and all Protestant Christians are indebted for 
 our present freedom of inquiry — by stating that at no 
 
28 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 time was his theology possessed of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and that his views, in any material sense, differed 
 from those commonly received by Trinitarians, I unques- 
 tionably deny ; but tiiat he yielded to some early reform- 
 ers, in regard to the manner in which this doctrine should 
 be presented, may be true ; for, on the one liand, was 
 Melancthon, with his lion-like spirit, but withal, pos- 
 sessed of much kindness and gentleness, which he exerted 
 to keep within bounds, and to avoid the extravagance 
 that zeal for the truth migiit have led them into; on the 
 other was Luther, witii his good sense and tenacity for 
 the truth, yet willing to yield in minor points, to avoid 
 strife and contention ; and this may be the case in this 
 particular instance; my opponent contends they had no 
 mediator between the Father and the Holy Spirit. I am 
 sorry to say my brother has allowed himself to make 
 these statements without being correctly informed. It is 
 very evident that there is but one God in the universe — 
 one living and true God, everlasting — and that in the 
 unity of this Godhead, there are three persons of equal 
 substance, glory, and eternity, the Father, Word, or Lo- 
 gos, and Holy Spirit; so tiuit these three constitute the 
 one living and true God, whom we worship, and who is 
 the author of the universe; and if you i-emove from the 
 Goihead tije second person of the Trinity, or Logos, 
 that was in the beginning with the Father,"you at once 
 enter upon the doctrine of atheism ; you annihilate Jeho- 
 vah ; you abolish the God of the Bible ; you put him 
 out of existence, if you remove from the Godhead the 
 third person, which is the Holy Spirit, sent forth from 
 tl)e Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. You will 
 likewise abolish the idea of the existence of one living 
 and true God. God the Spirit, we understand to be 
 that person, or his agent, employed in the great work of 
 human salvation, in awakening and convincing, in the 
 conversion, in the sauctitication, fitting and qualifying 
 tiie human soul, while a tenant of an eailhly tabernacle, 
 for an inheritance immortal at the right hand of God. 
 
PISCTJSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 29 
 
 I could not better illustrate my views of tlie office of the 
 Hoiv Spirit, as the supreme ai2;ent, in the sacred work 
 and economy of human salvation, than by comparing it 
 to the idea of a vast pendulum, fastened to the throne 
 of the Eternal, and reaching, in its vibrations, through 
 heaven and earth, down to hell. In heaven, causing the 
 saints and angels to rejoice — filling all the angelic world 
 with unutterable delight. In earth, warning its inhabit- 
 ants of unrighteousness and of judgment to come ; and 
 in hell^ executing the just penalties of a violated law, 
 upon the hopeless inhabitants of that world of woe. Hence 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three, I assume, are 
 one God — one living and true God — and that the em- 
 bodiment of these three persons of equal substance, 
 power, glory, and eternity, is in the person of Jesus 
 Christ, who took upon him, in the womb of the Virgin 
 Mary, a human body, in union with the divine nature ; 
 and in this association two separate and distinct natures 
 were merged in one person, to wit: the Godhead, and 
 the humanity; and this union of two natures, through- 
 out the boundless future, was never to be separated. 
 That there was, however, a separation between the human 
 and the divine natures, during the limited period of three 
 days and three nights, which transpired from the cruci- 
 fixion to the resurrection, is universally admitted by the 
 Trinitarian. This was signified when Christ, amidst 
 the agonies of the cross, cried, "My God! my God! 
 why hast thou forsaken me ?" We hold, that upon the 
 altar the divine nature was sacred and perfect human 
 nature, uncontaminated by sin. We maintain both a 
 passive and active obedience to the divine law, in its 
 moral and perceptive parts, so that guile was not found 
 in his mouth, but lamb-like innocence, as the man Christ 
 Jesus, from the cradle to the cj'oss ; for it becomes him 
 to make the captain of our salvation perfect through suf- 
 fering," and that human nature, sanctified by a ceaseless, 
 unwavering, and perfect obedience to the divine law, was 
 T^pable of making a suitable atonement for the sins of 
 
30 DISCUSSION ox THE TRINITY. 
 
 human nature. Those who were passive in the fall, 
 should be passive in the reception of Christ's death, that 
 those who were actually guilty, as transgressors of the 
 divine law, should be entitled to hope for salvation, upon 
 the ground of fliith, in the atonement Jesus Christ had 
 made for sins that were past, ^' tiirough the forbearance 
 of God," and of a future salvation, by a life wholly con- 
 formed to the sacred requirements of the divine law. 
 I think I have been sufficiently clear both in stating, and 
 in explaining, the position occupied by Trinitarians, with 
 regard to the character of God ; the term Son, in regard 
 to Jesus Christ, in connection with his human and divine 
 nature, we hold that this nature was united and subsisted 
 in one person; and this, I tliink, may be made clear from 
 the Word of God, in the course of this investigation. 
 My brother says, we make a God of Jesus Christ, though 
 we do not exalt the character of Christ as highly as do 
 the advocates of the position he occupies. He says his 
 views are not Arian, and intimated that they were not 
 Socinian ; and I am sure, that if my brother knows, he 
 will favor us with the name of his peculiar views upon 
 this subject. I should like if he would name them. 
 Mr. Summerbcll. — Christian. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — A very latitudinarian expression, in- 
 deed. How many the beliefs, and even practices, that 
 have been baptized into the sacred name of Christian ! It 
 would seem as if he was at a loss to determine what were 
 the peculiar views he is to advance, so he sees proper to 
 baptize the child, and call it by the general name of 
 Christian. I might respond in the same way to the 
 question: What do you call your views of the doctrine 
 of the deity of Jesus Christ ? It would seem very in- 
 definite to say, Well, I call them Christian views. Cer- 
 tainly I do. I presume no one would suspect me of 
 anything else. They would be Christian views," and 
 entertained by Christians in all sections of the religious 
 world. I maintain the position that Jesus Christ is equal 
 in power, majesty and glory, with God the Father ; and* 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 81 
 
 that I may definitely understand our mutual positions, I 
 wish my brother, who is in the affirmative, to clearly define 
 to me what ho believes Christ to be ; he has been telling us 
 what he is — I will note it down, and then I shall be fully 
 prepared to proceed in the investigation of this subject. 
 He assures the congregation that the views which I 
 represent are contrary to the teachings of the Word of 
 God ; but the views he advances, in regard to the charac- 
 ter of Christ, makes him inferior to the Father. And 
 are such views, I would ask, scriptural ? He quotes 
 Clarke again; we shall not difier on this; he thinks the 
 man, Christ Jesus, was a man. Does not this seem an 
 exception to the passage ? Jesus is said to be the son of 
 David, and the son of Abraham. Jesus Christ is here 
 allowed to be the son of two men, living at quite remote 
 lx?riods from each other. Matthew viii, 20, The foxes 
 have holes, and the biixls of the air have nests, but the Son 
 of Man hath not where to lay his head." This looks very 
 much as though he professed to be a man, inasmuch as 
 every son partakes of the essential characteristics and qual- 
 ities of his father; for it is an acknowledged principle, in 
 philosophy, that like begets like. "Jesus increased in 
 wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." 
 Here we have an evidence of regular developed physical 
 powers and capabilities. John i, 14, "And the Word 
 was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his 
 glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, 
 full of grace and tnith." Here the two natures are re- 
 ferred to in connection ; first, " he was made flesh and 
 dwelt among us." What was his flesh ? was it human 
 flesh ? we assume it was. The flesh of Jesus Christ was 
 the flesh of a human being ; he was a man. 1 Timothy, 
 ii, 5, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between 
 God and man, the man Christ Jesus." I suppose that 
 Dr. Clarke did not commit any very serious blunder 
 in theology, when he asserted that Jesus Christ, with 
 regard to the human nature, was a human being. I think 
 so. Hebrews ii, 14, " Forasmuch then as the children 
 
S2 
 
 DISCUSSION o^r the trinity. 
 
 are partakers of flesh and blood, he also, himself, like- 
 wise took part of the same, that through death he might 
 destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the 
 Devi!, aud deliver theai, who, through fear of death, 
 were all their lifetime subject to bondage ; for, verily, he 
 took Dot ou liim the nature of angels, but he took on him 
 the seed of Abraham. "Wherefore, in all things it be- 
 hooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he 
 might be a merciful High Priest in things pertaining to 
 God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people ; 
 for in that he liimself hath sufi'ered, being tempted, he 
 is able to succour them that are tempted." It looks to 
 me very much as if he possessed a human nature, if he 
 took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of 
 Abraham. Here is a person represented as taking upon 
 himself something else — united with him something else; 
 and, hence, this is the union of the human with the 
 divine nature. Jesus Christ, who in substance, power, 
 gloiy and eternity, is equal to the Father. He took not 
 upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. 
 Hebrews iv, 15, ''We have a great High-Friest that is 
 passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us 
 hold fast our profession; for we have not an high-priest 
 which cannot be touched with a feeling of our inhrmi ties, 
 but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without 
 sin." Here an allusion is made to kindred sympathies, 
 existing between Christ and those with whom he was 
 associated by blood. He was capable of sympathizing 
 with them, for he himself possessed a similar nature to 
 theirs. John iv, 3, " Every spirit that confesseth not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 
 Now he that denies this position, with regard to the 
 physical nature of Jesus Christ, which he assumed while 
 here, God coming in the flesh, as the son of David and 
 the son of Abraham — every spirit that denieth this 
 great truth, is not of God, but must stand rebuked as 
 opposed to the teaching of revelation. I complain of 
 this, my brother : of the reference made by you in regard 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 83 
 
 to your view of the character of our Saviour. But thea 
 he inquires, with regard to the power exercised by Jesus 
 Christ, who gave this power ? lie inquires, did the 
 Father give it to him ? 1 answer in the negative. All 
 power rests with God; all power is invested in God tlie 
 Father, God the Son, or Word, or Logos, and God the 
 Holy Spirit. All power equally rests in the three per- 
 sons of the Godhead. This language is represented as 
 conferring upon Christ, for specinc objects, with a view 
 to the redemption of human nature; and, hence, he uses 
 language which would be likely to be understood. All 
 power is given into my hands, in heaven and upon earth. 
 Notice the phraseology. Shall 1 use that power in 
 violation of the counsel of Heaven, and the council of 
 Jehovah ? No 1 I, myself, stand intimately associated 
 in that council. There are three persons in the God- 
 head ; upon me, as a Mediator, now rests the great work 
 of accomplishing redemption for the human race ; and, in 
 order to its accomplishment, unlimited power must be 
 called into requisition ; all power is necessary now, and 
 the highest power we can conceive of, is that of giving 
 life to the dead. We cannot conceive of greater power 
 than producing something out of nothing, and giving 
 life where it did not before exist. This power Christ 
 declared he possessed in the most positive sense. But 
 with regai'd to the right to exist, and the power to exist ; 
 he has it equal to the Father, in himself He hath given 
 unto the Son to have life in himself." Hence, Christ 
 assumes that he possessed life, and that he gives life. 
 First, he possessed power to restore life to those who 
 were literally dead, as in the case of the restoration of 
 the son of the widow of ISTain, who was being borne 
 upon the bier to the place of interment. The Saviour 
 had compassion for the weeping widow, and, to demon- 
 strate his" almighty power and Godhead, commanded 
 them to stop, and called to life again the young man 
 that was already dead upon his bier. Again, in the 
 restoration of Lazarus, who was raised to life four days 
 
34 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 after he died, under circumstances peculiarly trying. 
 Here was the house occupied by its three inmates, where 
 kindness and hospitality toward their Saviour had never 
 been wanted. Here Martha had served him ; here Mary 
 had sat at his feet and wept, washing his feet with her 
 tears, and wiping them with the hairs of her head ; and 
 here death had entered and removed their chief support. 
 And when he was yet absent from the place, Jesus said 
 to his disciples — and who but a God would have been 
 able to discover it — " Our brother Lazarus sleepeth." 
 But do you recollect the language in which he ap- 
 proached the sepulcher ? Haclst thou been here, ex- 
 claimed the weeping sister, our brother had not died. 
 Here was faith in these primitive Christians ; she believed 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ. " To whom shall we go, thou 
 hast the words of eternal life. If thou hadst been here 
 our brother had not died." Such was the sympathy for 
 those true Christians, that "Jesus wept." Then, as he 
 approached the grave's mouth, preparations were made, 
 and with a loud voice he called the sleeping man to life 
 again, and forthwith he was restored to his friends. I 
 ask, what power, but the power of Jehovah, has control 
 over the condition of the dead, to give life where it was 
 extinct ? Christ exercised this power. He said, " I say 
 unto thee, arise 1 " 
 
 Me. Summi:ebell's Third address : 
 
 I will just say, that I received my brother's letter, noti- 
 fying me of the debate, late last Saturday evening — too 
 late for him to have received a reply before starting here, 
 or I should have sent him one. My brother closed with 
 a good speech, on the glory and power of Christ. We 
 believe in his glory ; we trust in his power ; but all his 
 power was given to him. Jesus said, John v, 20, " I 
 can of myself do nothing. The Father that dwelleth in 
 me, he doeth the works." At the grave of Lazarus he 
 prayed and thanked the Father for hearing him. My 
 opponent next says, that Mary acknowledged that he was 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TEINITY. 
 
 35 
 
 God ; for she said, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my bro- 
 ther had not died. Mary knew that he was not God, for 
 God icas there ; and Martha said, that she knew that if 
 he would pray unto God, God would grant him whatever 
 he desired. My brotlier says, that if God gave him all 
 power, tliat this would make him equal with God. But 
 I cannot see how this would make him equal with him 
 from whom he received all power. Tlie sun imparts its 
 light to the moon; but that does not "make the moon 
 equal to the sun. My brother says, that " received all 
 power," means, that for the work of redemption he 
 needed all the combined power of the three persons, and 
 that nothing short of this would answer. Does he mean 
 that all three combined, have more power than one ? 
 
 Trinitarians have to contend that he was God, and from 
 all eternity possessed all power. How could the supreme 
 God receive all power ? If he needed all the power of 
 the three, then the power of one was finite ; but three 
 finites could not make one Infinite. Just as three times 
 one thousand miles do not make an infinite distance. 
 
 Here our brother loses his argument ; he is my bro- 
 ther, and I do not want him to fall into such difficulties. 
 He quotes John, " He that denieth that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the flesh, is anti-Christ." But I believe that 
 Jesus Christ came in the flesh, as well as my brother ; 
 even more. I believe Jesus' words, John vi, 38, "I came 
 down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will 
 of him that sent me." It was not God that came down 
 from heaven — not to do his own will, but the will of some 
 one else who sent HIM. Neither was it his very man, 
 for human nature did not exist in heaven before it did on 
 earth. My brother's creed says, that God has no body ; 
 but if Jesus be his God, his God has a body, and so his 
 cr(^d is false. Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood, 
 and was tempted in all points as we are ; but did God 
 take flesh and blood ? Jesus says, "a body hast thou pre- 
 pared me." Now if this was not God who took this body, 
 who was it ? He thinks that Jesus was very man because 
 
86 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 he was the son of David and Abraham ; bat Eom. i, 1, 
 says. That he was made of the seed of David accordinoj to 
 the flesh ; biit declared to be the Son of God according 
 to the spirit of holiness." lie also quoted Matt, viii, 20, 
 " Ttie son of man hath not where to lay his head." 
 Many others have been destitute of a place to lay their 
 head -, but this does not prove them God ; nor will Jesus 
 thus appearing among us prove him merely man. If he 
 reads Genesis he will find three MEX who appeared to 
 Abraham, as he sat in the tent door, in the plains of 
 Mamre, whose feet were washed, and for whom Abi'aham 
 prepared a kid, bread, etc.; yet Abraham worshiped, or 
 made obeisance unto them. To one of them he prayed, 
 calling him Jehovah ; so they are called Jehovah, angels 
 and men. My brother should show the necessary con- 
 nection of his text with his argument. Nothing comes 
 of quoting a great number of texts. The question is, Is 
 the Trinity in the texts ? Were it in one it would' an- 
 swer. Kow that Jesus had not where to lay his head, 
 does not prove the Trinity. 
 
 My brother says, that as he was the son of David, he 
 must have partaken of the nature of his father. But 
 God was his father. Even that which my brother calls 
 very man, had no earthly father ; but God was its father. 
 Then, on my brother's own showing, he being the Son 
 of God, would partake of God, and be divine. 
 
 He wanted me to name the party at the Kicene council, 
 which was neither Arian nor Trinitarian. I said Chris- 
 tian. I will-read him a little from Keander, Yol. ii, 372 : 
 
 " To form a correct notion of the order of business at 
 this council, we must, in the first place, present clearly 
 before our minds, the relation of the parties who were 
 present. Tliose who agreed entirely with the doctrine of 
 Arius, which was but a small party (only seventeen 
 bishops, p. 377.) then the advocates of the Ilomoousfon 
 (those now counted Trinitarians), who, likewise, in the 
 Eastern church, composed but a comparatively small 
 party," (be it remembered that the greater part of the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 8T 
 
 council were orientals, {. e. of the Eastern Church), " and 
 
 finally those who occupied the middle ground between 
 the two parties, and entertained views similar to those of 
 Eusebiiis, of Cesarea." This, my brother, was that other 
 party whom I called Christians^ but whom Neander, ii, 
 374, calls the more numerous dominant middle party 
 who, in vain, strove for peace. Eusebius " laid before 
 the council a confession of faith," which distinctly ex- 
 pressed the doctrine of Christ's divinity, " composed, for 
 the most part, of scriptural phraseology, which was con- 
 sidered by the party of Eusebius as being a peculiar 
 merit. In the creed of Arius, as in the formula of the 
 Homoousion, they especially censured the use of expres- 
 sions not conformed to the language of Scripture." 
 
 I read on p. 373, " Many of the decided expressions 
 of Arius, concerning the nature of the Son of God, must, 
 beyond question, have appeared offensive even to the 
 dominant middle party at the council," &c. " A con- 
 demnation of these Arian propositions might, doubtless, 
 have been easily carried through, if, on the other side, the 
 party defending the Homoousion had not also raised an 
 opposition to the dominant church doctrine of the East, 
 and if certain individuals had not come out as mediators 
 between the contending parties," &c. The men of this 
 middle party (dominant church party) acted as "medi- 
 ators" — "exerted themselves to establish peace" — are 
 called the " authors of peace," &c., p. 373. 
 
 Now, that dominant party held precisely our views on 
 the subject of the Godhead. 
 
 He still persists that the human nature could make a 
 sufficient atonement, but does not answer the assertion 
 of Clarke, that God will no more accept of man's blood 
 than he will of swine's blood. I wish you to mark that! 
 In truth, he has not answered anything. My reference 
 to Rev. i, 4, where the grace of the seven spirits is 
 invoked, he has not answered, nor has he answered the 
 many objections I presented to him, with reference to his 
 ci*eed. He has not explained how they baptize in the 
 
38 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, and a creature ; 
 mark that ! The creed sajs that the God and man in 
 Christ were never to be divided ; and the hymn says, that 
 " God, the mighty Maker, died but he says that they 
 were separate three days, and that God did not die. His 
 explanation of the Holy Ghost is, that it is like a pendu- 
 lum, attached to the throne, swinging through heaven, 
 earth, and hell ; that is a veiy good idea, but better for 
 us than for him, though I do not like the figure. But he 
 does not helieve that God the Holy Ghost is like a pen- 
 dulum, attached to the throne, swinging through heaven, 
 earth, and hell ! I believe the Holy Ghost is the Spirit 
 of God ; but he believes that it is the eternal God — the 
 infinite One — and to attach Him to the throne and swing 
 Him down to hell, is very wrong. He says, that the 
 three make one God, and if one were removed, then 
 Jehovah is gone, and the universe is left an orphan. 
 Very well ! Let us see ; they say that God died, " when 
 God, the mighty Maker, died and Tertullian says, that 
 God was not always a father, since he could not be a 
 father until he had a son. My brother's constitution 
 (creed) says, that Christ was made up of very God and 
 very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and 
 buried. If God was dead, and he could not be divided, 
 then the whole three were dead. He must account for 
 this ; we can not. Let him explain ! He says the Old 
 Testament Jews believed in the Trinity ; but I answer, 
 No. I would like him to quote the text. A friend of 
 mine who was present in a Xew York synagogue, asked 
 the Eabbi for an explanation of the word " Elohim." A 
 Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, " Why that 
 has reference to the three persons in the Trinity," when 
 a Jew stepped forward, and said that he must not men- 
 tion that word again, or they would have to compel him 
 to leave the house ; for it was not permitted to mention 
 the name of any strange God in the synagogue. 
 
 The objection that the Jews do not believe in Christ, 
 does not affect the argument ; if they believed that the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 39 
 
 Trinity was found in the word EloMm^ they would 
 admit it, whether they admitted that Christ had yet come 
 or not. Barnes also gives up the divine natm-e of the 
 Son ; he acknowledges that the Nicene fathers did not 
 admit the proper divinity of the Son, as they made 
 Christ to be God of God ; that is, one God, derived from 
 another God. Thus Clarke and Barnes give up the 
 Trinitarianism of the Kicene creed ; and as brother 
 Flood agrees with Clarke, he must give it up also. I 
 will now proceed with my argument, showing their con- 
 flicting views of the Son of God. 
 
 Clarke says, " The conjunction of these two tenns. Son 
 and Eternity, is absolutely impossible; as they imply 
 essentially different and opposite ideas." 
 
 " The enemies of Christ's divinity have, in all ages, 
 availed themselves of this incautious method of treating 
 this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the ad- 
 vantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ." 
 
 "This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, destroys the 
 deity of Christ." " Now if this deity be taken away, 
 the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined." " On 
 this ground the atonement of Christ can not be of infinite 
 merit," " and, consequently, could not purchase pardon 
 for the offences of mankind, nor give any right to, or 
 possession of, eternal glory." "The veiy use of this 
 phrase is both absurd and dangerous." " Therefore, let 
 all who value Jesus and their salvation, abide by the 
 Scriptures." 
 
 I&v. Mr. C. L. Brown, member of the Eastern Gen- 
 esee Conference of the M. E. Church, in a book sold by 
 the M. E. Book Concern, in Cincinnati, says, in reply 
 to the question, " Do you believe that Christ is the 
 Son of God ?" " Not in your sense of the term : he is 
 every way equal with the Father ; that — whenever the 
 term Son is applied to his divine nature, it does not ex- 
 press such an actual relation as Father and Son, but 
 is applied to him solely in view of his incarnation." 
 Mr. Brown says, p. 36, "The merit of the atonement 
 
40 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 clepeDded not so much upon the extent of the suffering, as 
 it did upon the character.-' " Wc believe that he brought 
 to the work a human nature, free froui moral taint — pure 
 as that of Adam in pristine innocence ; and in that spot- 
 less nature, fulfilled the law and made it honorable." 
 
 So that v,'ith them the sufferer on the cross is dignified 
 by being called, as good as Adam ; and his greatness is 
 dispensed with for such goodness. Horror of horrors ! 
 A mere man as good as Adam, and vet Clarke says, that 
 God will no more accept of nmn's blood — it can no more 
 appease God — than swine's bloorl. 2 Sam. xxi, 10. 
 
 Albert Barnes, Presbyterian, agrees with Clarke, that 
 the Son of God is not eternal or equal with the Father. 
 
 Barnes, Heb. i, '* He was in intimate union with the 
 Father, and was one with him in some respects ; though 
 in certain others there was a distinction. I do not see 
 any evidence, in the Scriptures, of the doctrine of 
 eternal generation ; and it is certain that that doctrine 
 militates against the proper eternity of the Son of 
 God. The fathers of the Christian church, it is be- 
 lieved, held that tlie Son of God, as to his divine nature, 
 as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. 
 Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as begotten of the 
 Father, before all worlds, God of God, etc. They held 
 with one voice, that he was God ; but it was in this man- 
 ner. But this is incredible and impossible ; a derived 
 being can not, in any proper sense, be God.'' See also 
 Eom. i. Yet, though Barnes here denies the eternity of 
 the Son as impossible ; yet, on John x, 34, he contradicts 
 himself, by saying, that "Son of God is a divine title, 
 implying equality with GodP Thus, also, Barnes gives 
 up all the Christian fathers, as not holding to the true 
 and proper Godhead of Christ ; but though holding him 
 to be God, yet derived — that is, a derived God. 
 
 Thus both Clarke, the great Methodist commentator, 
 and Barnes, the Presbyterian, give up the divinity of the 
 Son ; and Barnes gives up the proper Trinitarianism of 
 theXicene fathers ; which my brother must also give up. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 41 
 
 Wood, seeing that such views destroy all Trinity, says, 
 that '-Christ is the eternal Son of God "—and that, "if the 
 personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be givea 
 up, there must either be three distinct Gods ; or but one 
 person manifested in three different characters ; " and 
 avers, that " He is the eternal Son of God, equal with the 
 Father." — Bib. Die, published for the Methodist, etc., 
 1813. 
 
 Christ, however, says, " My Father is greater than 1." 
 Wesley said, that he thought that his brother Charlea 
 expressed it best, as follows : 
 
 "From thee, in one eternal no-w, 
 Thy Son, thy otfspring flowed, 
 An everlasting Father, tliou, 
 As everlasting God." — Clarke on Luke i, 35. 
 
 Eev. C. L. Brown, says, " Who then was his mother? 
 Who was his mother V 
 
 Wood, says, " No man that doubts of his (the eter- 
 nal Son) being the only true and most high God, can, in 
 consistency with common sense, allow himself to be a 
 Christian ; " thus plainly unchristianizing my brother. 
 
 But Clarke, maintains that " If Christ be the Son of 
 God, as to his divine nature, then, he cannot be eternal." 
 
 Wood, thinks that " a number of texts represent him 
 as God's proper and only begotten Son, prior to all deri- 
 vation of him." 
 
 Lutheran Bib. Theology, Storr & Flatt, etc., makes 
 both the divine Son to be a created God, and also deifies 
 the humanity, p 417. " The name. Son of God, is given 
 to the man Jesus, because, according to the will of the 
 Father, he is partaker of his divine perfections ; inasmuch 
 as the well beloved Son of the Father, who in consequence 
 of (not his own self-existence) his very close union with 
 him, (the Father) is himself God, etc., has united him- 
 self to the man Jesus in a union so close, that no other 
 union like it, is to be found between God and any other 
 man, and indeed any other creatm-e." 
 
 Here we have the divine Son made God by his union 
 4 
 
42 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 with God; and the man Jesus, by the union, becomes 
 God ; see p. 420 ; so that this man has divine govern- 
 ment^ divine honor, and is Lord of all — has all power in 
 heaven and in earth, p. 421. 
 
 Note ; thus they make the divine Son, God, by union 
 with God — the human son God by imion with the divine ; 
 and yet deny divinity to the Son altogether, and accuse 
 each other of blasphemy for denying it : and next use 
 the same irreverence to the Son. 
 
 Clarke^ on John i, 1, refers to the Indian Trinity, as a 
 duplicate of the creed. 
 
 Neander says, that " such a view is wholly at war 
 with, and opposed to, Christianity." — ]N"ean. i, 573. 
 
 Wood; " How often is his character of Son plainly dis- 
 tinguished from his official character of Christ." 
 
 Clarke; " The doctrine of the eternal sonship, destroys 
 the deity of Christ. Now, if this deity be taken away, 
 the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined." 
 
 On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have 
 been of infinite merit, and consequently, could not 
 PUKCHASE PAEDON " for the ofiences of mankind, 
 nor give any right to a possession of eternal glory. The 
 very use of this phrase is botli absurd and dangerous ; 
 therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salva- 
 tion, abide by the Scriptures." 
 
 Wood; " If Jesus be not the supreme God, he was a 
 setter up of idolatry, encouraging men to worship him- 
 self ; and Mahomet^ who zealously opposed such worship, 
 must be a valuable reformer." — Clarke, on Luke i, 35, 
 and Wood, on Christ, 248. 
 
 Note. We notice here, great irreverence for Jesus ; if 
 thus, and so is not the case, then Jesus was a setter up 
 of idolatry — a noted blasphemer, and the Jews did well 
 to crucify him. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Third reply: 
 
 My friend Summerbell, I am pleased to see, possesses 
 a very good spirit, though he has been toiling through a 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 43 
 
 serious agony. Objects of distress always excite my sym- 
 pathy. I am a very sympathetic man. In fact, I think it 
 wouid be well to make the confession, that sympathizing 
 with distress, as I do at all times, it would be so great 
 an affliction to me, should my brother continue to make 
 such calls upon my sympathetic feelings, that I know 
 not how I should bear it ; I hope, therefore, my brother 
 will sti-engthen his nerves for my sake, that I may not 
 be excited by any effects he may see fit to introduce. 
 With respect to the arrangement for this discussion, I 
 must repeat, that I stated the simple facts, this morning. 
 I had no knowledge that this discussion was positively 
 to take place, until I came within a few miles' ride of 
 this town ; my brother did not answer my letter ; so I 
 had not the slightest intimation that my brother Sum- 
 merbell would be here. I am very glad that he is here, 
 and I am quite liappy that I am here too, and that we 
 are all here. The points of argument, with this admis- 
 sion, that neither of us concede the subject, in the 
 existence of the human nature of Jesus Christ, to his 
 manifestations on this earth, here seems to me a clearly 
 implied admission of the position assumed, that, Jesus 
 Christ, whatever may be his true relation, possesses two 
 separate and distinct natures. This is one point in the 
 argument, and if designed for any thing, was designed 
 by my good brother to be directed to this point. That 
 two natures, whatever should be those natures, in the 
 person of Jesus Christ, lie took it for granted, is already 
 acceded ; now, if we can ascertain what these natures 
 consisted of — what they really are — we shall accomplish 
 one principal point in the investigation of this pai-t of 
 our subject. It is clearly to be inferred, that there was 
 a nature of some description, which had a previous 
 existence ; it is here admitted, (and I think my oppo- 
 nent will not question it,) that Jesus Christ already pos- 
 sesses a human nature ; that he was the son of Abraham, 
 and the son of David ; that he was the son of man, and 
 that he was a man, not less than one hundred and fifty 
 
44 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 passages in the New Testament, affirm, stating, in some 
 form or other, the doctrine of Christ's humanity ; the fact, 
 that he was a man, is stated in phraseology sufficiently 
 clear, that no other idea can be drawn from the language 
 itself ; and that he claimed to be a man, and as to his 
 flesh united by kindred blood to humanity, in that 
 human nature, as I showed in my previous remarks, he 
 sustained an entire exemption from all evil, yielding a 
 passive and actual obedience to the requirements of the 
 divine law in the human nature, in connection with the 
 divine nature ; was qualified to become the captain of 
 our salvation, and accomplish the work of human re- 
 demption, to redeem human nature by price and by 
 power. On the one hand, he is the Son of God, united 
 to human nature by blood, as well as by association ; 
 on the other hand, he was united to God by his divine 
 nature, one with the Father in substance, and in power, 
 and was capable, from this very consideration, to become 
 a perfect Saviour, able to sympathize with the distresses 
 of the human race, in their fallen condition ; realizing at 
 once their necessities, and on the ground of his absolute 
 perfection as God, capable of meeting every exigency, 
 and meeting its most extended demands ; purchasing 
 salvation for all them that obey him. He quotes Nean- 
 der, Yol. ii, 372, and shows from this, that there were 
 two parties at the time of the Nicene convention, by 
 whom these articles, known as the Nicene Creed, were 
 formed. At that time there were two parties; the one 
 known by the name of Arian, the other by that of Trini- 
 tarian. However, he insists that the finishing touch, to 
 Trinitarianism, w^as given subsequent to this ; but then 
 he tells us, that there was another party, supposed to be 
 the dominant party; and then my brother goes on to 
 suppose, that this was the Christian body; and that 
 doubtless from that majority, the dominant party, the 
 true Christian party, descended to the Christian church, 
 as we have it at the present day. I will now direct your 
 attention to Dr. Mosheim ; we have a little account 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 45 
 
 here. The Arians denied the essential divinity of 
 Jesns Christ, and the majority, who were, I suppose,^ of 
 the Christian church, decided in favor of the Trinitarian 
 party. Well now, if such a council should be assembled 
 to-day, in this little city, composed of the majority, I 
 question most sincerely, whether a production similar to 
 the Nicene creed would proceed from such a body of 
 men. Yet, he thinks, they were in the majority. We 
 quote now Dr. Mosheim, p. 126, " For those who, in 
 the main, were far from being attached to the party of 
 Arius, found many things reprehensible, both in the de- 
 crees of the council, and in the forms of expression which 
 it employed, to explain the controverted points ; while 
 the Arians, on the other hand, left no means untried to 
 Ileal their wounds, and to recover their place, and their 
 credit in the church ; and their efibrts were crowned 
 with the desired success : for a few years after the coun- 
 cil of Nice, an Arian priest, who had been recommended 
 to the Emperor, in the dying words of his sister Con- 
 stantia, found means to persuade him, that the condem- 
 nation of Arius was utterly unjust, and was rather 
 occasioned by the malice of his enemies, than by their 
 zeal for the truth. In consequence of this, the Emperor 
 recalled him from banishment in the year 330, — repealed 
 the laws that had been enacted against him, and per- 
 mitted his chief protector, Eusebius, of Nicomedia, and 
 his vindictive faction, to vex and oppress the partisans 
 of the Nicene council, in various ways. Athanasius, 
 bishop of Alexandria, was one of those who suffered 
 most from the violent measures of the Arian party. 
 Invincibly firm in his purpose, and deaf to the most 
 powerful solicitations and entreaties, he obstinately re- 
 fused to restore Arius to his former rank and office. 
 On this account, he was deposed by the council holden 
 at Tyre, in the year 335 ; and was afterward banished 
 into Gaul, while Arius and his followers were, with 
 great solemnity, reinstated in their privileges, and re- 
 ceived into the communion of the church. The people 
 
46 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 of Alexandria, unmoved by these proceedings in favor 
 of Arms, persisted in refusing to grant him a place 
 among their Presbyters ; upon which, the Emperor in- 
 vited him to Constantinople, in the year 336, and ordered 
 Alexander, the bishop of that city, to admit him to his 
 communion ; but before this order could be put in exe- 
 cution. Arias died in the Imperial City, in a very dismal 
 manner ; and his sovereign did not long survive him." 
 This was a political transaction, five years subsequent to 
 the assembly of the Nicene council, by which were re- 
 stored to Arius certain privileges that had been forfeited. 
 Had it been our fortune to have lived then, we might 
 have put in a plea for a little sympathy. But the times 
 are changed. " Yalens, on the other hand, favored the 
 Arians ; and his zeal for their cause exposed their 
 adversaries, the Nicenians, in the eastern provinces, to 
 many severe trials, and much suffering." — Mosheim, 
 Yol. i, p. 127. 
 
 Here we have evidence of what the Christian parties 
 were at that time. They do not seem to have been 
 divided in the manner my brother appears to think. 
 But, admitting that the Christian church was in the 
 ascendant, we must believe that Christians were in favor 
 of the Trinity, for the majority had given their sanction 
 to the Nicene creed. He refers again to me, by saying, 
 that he believed I had been engaged in quoting texts of 
 Scripture from Mr. Jimeson : " I pray you have me 
 excused." Passages of Scripture were selected from 
 difierent parts of the Old and New Testaments ; I do 
 not know that Mr. Jimeson was consulted in the quota- 
 tion of a single passage. My brother seems anxious 
 that I should say something about the seven spirits ; 
 what that has to do with the question of the equality of 
 Jesus Christ with the Father, I do not pretend to say ; but 
 a man of his perception may be able to discern, but not 
 being able myself to perceive the association, I pass it 
 over ; I simply say, that grace is favor ; it may be desi- 
 rable to have the favor of all beings, in more favorable 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 47 
 
 circumstances than we are, and under the circumstances, 
 the grace of the seven spirits ; this language was uttered 
 by one under inspiration, who, of coui-se, knew more of 
 the oflBces of the spirits of the heavenly world than our- 
 selves ; and hence, I suppose, it is strictly right that we 
 should desire to have the grace, or favor, of all good be- 
 ings, from the highest, even to the humblest saint that lives 
 upon this earth ; this is all I have to say upon the subject 
 at present, with respect to the offices of the spirit, as the 
 great agent in carrying forward the designs of Jehovah, in 
 heaven, and earth, and hell. I confess, I felt surprised 
 that my brother should indulge in the tind of phrase- 
 ology he employed ; I thought there was nothing irrev- 
 erent in the illustrations I used. I represented by a figure, 
 or metaphor, the agency, or the office of the Holy Ghost, 
 in heaven, earth, and hell ; in one, as the source of re- 
 joicing and triumph ; in the other, as awakening con- 
 version and sanctification ; and in the third, executing 
 the just penalties of the divine law ; and I pass with this 
 allusion, that I would not willingly indulge in a single 
 expression that could, by any possibility, be tortured into 
 irreverence. He says, the Jews did not believe in the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and instances a minister who 
 was threatened with expulsion from a New York syna- 
 gogue, for pronouncing the word expressive of the Trin- 
 ity ; he could not be tolerated on account of introducing 
 the name of a strange God. Is he not aware that the 
 Jews are infidels, eveiy one of them, and that they have 
 never ceased to reject Jesus ; " that thou, being a man, 
 makest thyself God,'- is the gi'ound on which they have 
 predicated their rejection of him, and their consequent 
 contempt for his person. I ask, did Christ once question 
 their position, when they asserted that he, being a man, 
 made himself equal with God ? Hear the language of 
 inspiration : " being in the form of God, he thought it no 
 robbery to be equal with God ;" Christ thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God. So says the Apostle 
 Paul, who thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, 
 
48 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 he justified himself, and persisted in his course, though 
 rejected by man upon this very ground ; but my brother 
 is in error ; the Jews have changed their ground with 
 respect to those passages that were regarded by tlieir 
 fathers as applicable to their messiah, since they have 
 rejected Jesus as the true messiah ; see Isaiah 53. The 
 character of the true messiah is presented by the Jewish 
 church, up to the time of the introduction of Christianity, 
 in these passages, which are applicable to their promised 
 messiah ; but when they came to the conclusion to reject 
 the Saviour, and to be infidel, then they found it neces- 
 sary, that they might sustain their position against the 
 invasions of the Christian church, which were continually 
 thrust upon them, by quotin^^ other authorities on that 
 ground; and what is woncferful, they have distorted 
 those passages which apply to Christ, applying them 
 to themselves ; and yet my brother comes up here and 
 tells us, that the Jews do not believe in the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and would reject a person from their syna- 
 gogues who would pronounce the name. I ask. Could a 
 minister perform the rite of Christian baptism in a Jewish 
 synagogue ? The very moment he uttered, " I baptize 
 thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost," he would certainly be treated in the 
 same manner, as he who gave his influence, as to the 
 meaning of a single word. We now come to the point 
 that threw my brother into paroxysms of distress ; he 
 quotes, If Jesus is not the eternal God, he was a setter 
 up of idolatry ; and Mahomet was to be preferred be- 
 fore him this language was used in reference to Jesus 
 Christ, if he were not the eternal God. I took it as from 
 Clarke ; this seems to give the brother a good deal of 
 ti'ouble ; but does he not read, " Thou shalt have no 
 other gods before me? God is a jealous God, and will not 
 suffer his worship to be given to another." Again, 
 there was an occasion when a being of exalted character, 
 from his appearance, was about to receive acts of devo- 
 tion at the hand of a servant of God ; namely, from 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 49 
 
 John, in the Isle of Patmos ; the evangelist would have 
 fallen down to worship him, but he was rebuked at 
 once ; "See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant;" 
 and though I appear to thee, as a being tangible to your 
 sense, and superior in glory to anything you have pre- 
 viously beheld, I am not God. These brighter rays 
 that you see around me, are the tokens of my heavenly 
 triumph, and surround the redeemed in the Heaven of 
 heavens ; they are not my own, but borrowed rays from 
 the Sun of Kighteousness, by whose blood I have been 
 fitted for this exalted state. I indulge in this paraphrase 
 on the passage : I am not a proper object of worship — see 
 that thou do it not. Did Christ treat his worshipers 
 in this manner ? Did the human nature create the just 
 jealousy of Jehovah against any other being ? In the 
 person of Jesus Christ, dwells the fullness of my God, 
 bodily ; he is an object of my devotions, for in him 
 dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. But 
 the manner of this worship, will be a question to be ex- 
 amined hereafter. My opponent quotes from Jimeson, 
 and says, if Christ is not God, he was an impostor ; 
 this, of all things else, seems most deeply to penetrate 
 the soul of my good brother; that he could use such 
 language with regard to Christ ; and he says, if Christ 
 is not God ; but then, if he is God, it does not turn out 
 that he is an impostor. These little if 's, have a great 
 deal to do in determining serious questions ; if, and if, 
 materially alters the case. 
 
 Mk. Scmmeebell's Fourth address : 
 
 " If," and " if," says my brother Flood; but I leave it 
 to you, my friends, whether they would not have been 
 more Christian in saying, " K Jesus Christ be not the 
 eternal God, ice are mistaken^'' rather than saying, " if 
 he be not the eternal God, he is an impostor." This 
 would have been a great deal better. There is a good 
 deal hangs upon this little " if," as my brother intimates ; 
 but / would not hang upon if 's at all. He quotes, "God 
 5 
 
50 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." I do 
 not see that this proves anytliing for my brother. Yes, 
 God was in Christ. " It is not I (said Jesns) that do the 
 works, but the Father that dwelleth in me." He should 
 prove that God was Christ, and that Christ was God ; 
 not that God was in Christ ; that is my brother's busi- 
 ness. Because a man in Revelations refuses to let John 
 worship him, my brother thinks there is a discrepancy in 
 my worshiping the Son of God ; but I can not see any. 
 I am willing to obey God, and run all risks. The Deca- 
 logue says, " thou shalt have no other gods before me 
 it does not say, "ye shall have no other gods before 
 %Lsy This me ungods the " other two persons," for the 
 three persons do not speak and say us," but one, 7ne. 
 He says the Jews reject Christ ; but it is on the word 
 ^^EloMm^'' and not on Christ, that tliey were arguing. 
 He said that the Jews were Trinitarians, and, if so, 
 they would have acknowledged the Trinity in Elohim^ 
 whether they acknowledged Christ had come or not. I 
 did not bring this forward as a proof on the question, 
 but to show the opinion of the Jews on the word Elohim, 
 in answer to my brother's ap]Deal to them. My brother 
 says that the Apostle Paul affirms that Jesus Christ was 
 equal with God, and he will leave it for me to settle with 
 the Apostle ; but I have no controversy with the Apostle. 
 No ! I proved from Dr. Macknight that Paul did not say 
 that Jesus was equal with God, but that it was the trans- 
 lators who said it. So there is notliing to settle between 
 Paul and me. He again joins with the Jews on John 
 X, 34, where they accuse Christ of making himself equal 
 with God ; but Jesus repelled the charge, saying, "Many 
 good works do I show you, for which of these do ye 
 stone me ? and they said, for a good work we stone thee 
 not, but for blasphemy ; and that because that thou, be- 
 ing a man, makest thyself God, for he said I am the 
 Son of God. And Jesus answered them, Is it not 
 written in your law, I said ye are gods ? if, therefore, he 
 called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and 
 
DISCUSSION ON" THE TRINITY. 
 
 61 
 
 the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the 
 Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blas- 
 phemest, because I said, I am the Son of God ?" Jesu3 
 told them plainly that he only claimed to be the Son of 
 God. You see my brother should remember these things. 
 He said the Jews are infidels ; I admit it ; I did not 
 quote them as authority, but he appealed to them against 
 me, and joins them in saying that Jesus made himself 
 equal witli God. My brother accuses us of being Arians, 
 and of persecuting, (he quotes from Mosheim, i, 109). I 
 quoted from Dr. Neander that we were not Arians ; this 
 is higher authority than Mosheim ; his work is emi- 
 nently better and a later one. I now refer him to Mo- 
 sheim, Yol. i, p. 109. Maclaine, the learned translator 
 of Mosheim, says of those who accused Eusebius, of 
 Cesarea, of Arianism, " All, however, that these writers 
 prove, is, that Eusebius maintained that a certain dis- 
 parity and subordination subsisted between the persons 
 in the Godhead. If we suppose this to have been his 
 opinion, it will not follow that he was an Arian, unless 
 that word be taken in a very extensive and improper 
 sense. Nothing is more common than the abusive ap- 
 plication of this term to persons who have entertained 
 opinions opposite to those of Arius." My brother falls 
 into the same error, and calls us Arians. The larger party, 
 at the Council of Nice, was not Arian. I refer him again 
 to the party there repi-esented by Eusebius, of Cesarea, in 
 Palestine, who held our views of Christ. My brother, 
 all along, instead of following me, has been leading off 
 in affirmative propositions ; thus, instead of reviewing 
 my speech, he calls me ofi' to correct liim. I have read 
 to him from Dr. Barnes, against the Trinitarianism of the 
 Nicene creed ; that it destroys the deity of Christ alto- 
 gether. Clarke denies the Trinitarianism of the Nicene 
 creed, also. Now, if they were Trinitarians, would they 
 have drawn up such a creed as tliey did ? My brother 
 wants to know how they came to draw up such a creed 
 as they did, if they were Christians ? I will tell you ; it 
 was by the influence of the Emperor ; he laid his heavy 
 
52 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 hand into the scale. That was what made the majority. 
 
 He again intimates that they were Arians and persecuted. 
 When he speaks of us as Arians, just set it down for 
 nothing; the Arians were of a different school. I do 
 not wish to father their sins ; we have enough of our 
 own. He says, Christ paid the price to redeem us. Did 
 he pay it to God ? or whom did he pay ? Did God re- 
 ceive the amount for our salvation in suffering ? My 
 brother gets up making fun of the feeling 1 manifested 
 in relation to the sufferings of the crucified Jesus, and 
 the severe language used against him by Methodist 
 authors. I shall leave my brother to have all the fun to 
 himself. He says, that I admit that Jesus had two 
 natures. ISo ! 1 alluded to his own doctrine in speaking 
 of two natures ; that it could not have been the human 
 nature that came down from heaven before it went there, 
 nor the divine that came not to do its own will. But 
 his argument claims not only two natures, but tico he- 
 ings — two whole natures — one whole God, and one whole 
 man. There may be two natures in a block of wood ; 
 but two persons, one an eternal, infinite God, and the 
 other a finite man ; one existing from all eternity, a be- 
 ing without beginning of days, the other a man a few 
 years old, are not two natures merely, but two beings. I 
 have thus answered my opponent. I will now resume 
 my argument on the contradictions among orthodox min- 
 isters upon this doctrine. 
 
 Dr. Jimeson, the able expositor of the XXY Articles, 
 whom my brother has here with him, and approves, 
 says : "If Jesus were not God, the authors of the Gospels 
 and the Epistles must have adopted a very dangerous 
 style.'' " To the Jews Christ constantly proposed him- 
 self as the very and eternal God." P. 78. 
 
 Jesus said : "I ascend to my Father and to your 
 Father, to my God and to your God." John xx, 17. '* If I 
 honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is my Father that 
 honoreth me, of whom ye say, that he is yoiu' God." 
 John viii, 54. 
 
 Jimeson says : " If he is not the b-ue God, Christ him- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 self, as well as his Apostles, must have practiced the 
 grossest possible deception, and are therefore unworthy a 
 name in the history of the world.*' lb., p. 79. That is, if 
 my creed be not trne, then I am not mistaken ; but Christ 
 practiced the grossest possible deception, and is unwor- 
 thy ! &c. 
 
 Wood says : " K Christ be not God, the Jews did well 
 to crucify him as a noted blasphemer that made himself 
 equal with God." Art. Christ. 
 
 Jesus still said: My Father is greater than I."' 
 
 Wood continues : Then they did well to persecute his 
 Apostles, who represented him as the object of worship.'' 
 
 The Apostles said : ''To us there is none other God but 
 one ; for though there be that are called gods, whether 
 in heaven or on earth, as there be lords many and gods 
 manv ; but unto us there is but one God, the Father.'' 
 1 Cor. iv, 4-8. 
 
 AVhat words are these ? If — if our conclusions are not 
 true, then Jesus was a blasphemer. Thus the Son of the 
 living God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth, the Judge of quick and dead, is tried by the 
 Methodist ministers, on the charge, that unless he is the 
 eternal God, he was a noted blasphemer and a setter up 
 of idolatry, and that the Jews did well to cracify him ; 
 and Mahomet is chosen in his stead. They do not say, 
 if Jesus be not the eternal God, then ice were mistaken. 
 Oh, no ; they are orthodox ! But, then, he icas rais- 
 taken — he was a setter up of idolatry, and the Jews did 
 well to crucify him. My dear brother I in what com- 
 pany are you ? Dear friends I sweet friends I can you 
 fellowship such a system ? You may have thought for- 
 merly that it was only Christ's followers, a poor despised 
 company of Christians, who were cursed ; but here you 
 see Christ and his Apostles are not spared ! Xo allow- 
 ances are made for the mistakes of fallible men I But 
 if our creed is not right, then Jesus was an impostor, a 
 setter up of idolatiy ; the Jews did well to cruelty him, 
 and to persecute liis Apostles. Do you not remember 
 
54 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 that it is wi'itten of some, tlmt they have crucified the 
 Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame ? And 
 does not this look like its fulfillment ? Can you not see 
 him even now wounded { See his hands bleed again in 
 the palms, and see the blood oozing out of his feet 'i See 
 the purple tide flowing out of his side, running down to 
 the ground ? See his temples all torn again with the 
 thorny crown ? See them smite him with the palms of 
 their hands ] See them spit in his face, and reject him ? 
 Hark, hear them say, " If Christ be not the eternal God, 
 the Jews did well to crucify him I Does not the Spirit 
 whisper in your hearts, " This doctrine is Antichrist, 
 which denieth the Father and the Son 'i Jesus is again 
 rejected and set at naught ! Upon his back again are 
 seen the fun-ows of the cruel scourge. Shall we ask 
 him, what are these wounds in thy hands ? Then shall 
 he answer, " Those with which 1 was wounded in the 
 house of my friends." Zechariah xiii, 6. 
 
 Yet Jesus, most blasphemed and rejected, still prays 
 for them, " Father, forgive them, they know not what 
 they do." Still they cry — those who thank God that 
 they are not as other men — and look upon others with 
 pious horror ; they say, '* If Jesus was not God, the Jews 
 did well to crucify him, and to persecute his Apostles !" 
 And these are the gi-eat men in the Methodist church : 
 Wood, of the Bible Dictionary ; Mattison and Brown, 
 the exterminators of heretics; Jimeson. the able ex- 
 pounder of the XXV Articles ; Clarke, the great com- 
 mentator; and Bishop Watson, the oracle; and these 
 have diiiered no more from Barnes, the great Presby- 
 terian, and Stoor and Flatt, the Lutherans, <fec., than 
 among themselves. 
 
 I do -not like the use of such language concerning 
 Christ. It does not look as though they reverenced him 
 enough. I do not wish to be hard on them, but we 
 shoufd not defend such a system of religion. It does not 
 exist in their hearts but in their heads ; but called ortho- 
 dox it passes current, even though it lead men to speak 
 
BISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 65 
 
 thus of Christ. I say with Jesus," Father, forgive them, 
 they know not what they do." 
 
 I will now present forty-four sentences, proving that 
 Jesus Christ is distinct from God in person. 
 
 1. Christ is God-s. 
 
 2. He is God's Son. 
 
 3. He is God's sent. 
 
 4. He is God's servant. 
 
 5. He is at God's right hand. 
 
 6. God gave his Son ; but the Son did not. 
 T. God has a Son ; but the Son has not. 
 
 8. God is the Father of Jesus Christ ; but the Son is 
 
 not. 
 
 9. God is invisible ; but the Son is not. 
 
 10. God has no body ; but the Son has, 
 
 11. God is three persons; and the Son is but one. 
 
 12. God never prays ; but the Son does. 
 
 13. God is not a mediator; but the Son is. 
 
 14. God has no Father ; but the Son has. 
 
 15. God never gives thanks. 
 
 16. God is never second. 
 
 17. God has no God. 
 
 18. God never sacrifices his own will. 
 
 19. God does not receive his words from another. 
 
 20. God does not receive his power of another. 
 
 21. None creates, saves, or judges, by God. 
 
 22. Nothing is unknown to God. 
 
 23. Tliere is nothing that God can not do of himself. 
 
 24. God will never be subject to another. See 1 Cor. 
 
 XV, 34. 
 
 25. God was not a sacrifice. 
 
 26. God was not scourged, spit upon, or bufieted. 
 
 27. God did not bear his cross. 
 
 28. God never forsook God. 
 
 29. God did not come out from God, nor ascend up to 
 
 God. 
 
 30. God never said. My Father is greater than I. 
 
 31. God did not receive his life of another. 
 
56 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 32. God was never sent by another. 
 83. God was never dead, nor buried. 
 
 34. God performs all his own works in his own name. 
 
 35. God never looks up to another. 
 
 36. God never became poor for our sakes. 
 
 37. God was not made a little lower than the angels. 
 
 38. God is never called the angel of God. 
 
 39. God is not at the right hand of God. 
 
 40. God is not the Lamb of God. 
 
 41. God never ofiered himself to God. 
 
 42. God never made satisfaction to God. 
 
 43. God is not a man, neither the Son of man. 
 
 44. God is supreme, the Father of all. 
 
 I hope that my brother will take up each of these forty- 
 four arguments, each one of which shows that Jesus 
 Christ is distinct in person from God, and, conse- 
 quently, can not be the God that lie diflers from. If I 
 produced no more than one discrepancy, he would be 
 bound to clear it up, or to renounce his system ; but here 
 are forty-four, and we can produce hundreds and thou- 
 sands of texts to the same import. 
 
 Let me now call your attention to God, as revealed in 
 his word. The universe of worlds rolling on high, 
 reveals his glory. Day unto day uttereth speech ; and 
 night unto night showeth knowledge. Every atom of 
 creation — every star sparkling on high — proves his wis- 
 dom, power, and goodness. 
 
 1. Though God has never been seen. 
 
 2. Yet the universe will continually remind us of his 
 existence. 
 
 3. The glories of the shining worlds, and the adapta- 
 tion of nature to all our ^ants^ prove his goodness. 
 
 4. The vastness of creation proves his power. 
 
 5. Every atom of the physical, with every intelligence 
 of the spiritual worlds prove his wisdom. And, 
 
 6. The perfect adaptation of all, proves his unity. 
 Nine proper names belong to God, viz : 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 57 
 
 1. Jehovah^ Jah^ Ehejah; are three denoting self- 
 
 existence. 
 
 2. El^ Eloah^ EloMm: are three denoting his 
 poioer. 
 
 3. Adonai^ Shaddai^ and Jehovah Tsebaoth; are 
 three denoting government. 
 
 These are generally translated Jehovah^ God^ and 
 Lord. 
 
 God's power is called omnipotence ; his wisdom, om- 
 niscience ; his goodness, blessedness ; his universality, 
 omnipresence ; and the perfection of his nature, infinity. 
 He is unequaled in majesty., g^on^y-^ power., and eternity. 
 There is not a being in the universe but is dependent on 
 him for life, happiness, power, and all that they enjoy ; 
 while God is independent of all, underived., urtbegotten^ 
 uncreated^ uncaused., self-existent., independent. As is 
 the difference between any given distance or quantity^ 
 and infinity — between any given time and eternity, 
 such is the difference between the most perfect created 
 heing in the universe, and the supreme Being. Yet as 
 the insect of a day supposes time to be eternity, and 
 mortal man to be God ; so man, in his turn, is ever in- 
 clined to worship the greatness which dazzles his intel- 
 lect ; and to imagine that power supreme which he can 
 not comprehend. 
 
 That there are intermediate ^rm(?^j?^^7^/^V5, and powers^ 
 and thrones^ and dominions^ the great Book of heaven 
 clearly informs us. And that we might, ere this, have 
 become better informed upon this infinitely interesting 
 mhject^ had not the key of knowledge been removed by 
 priestcraft, no informed mind can doubt. But reason 
 has been denounced as fit only for skeptics ; and inves- 
 tigation., as sapping the foundation of truth. 
 
 The philosopher, unless willing to be denounced and 
 burnt as a heretic, must cmcify his understanding to 
 Justin, or Athanasius, or Calvin. And yet, we doubt 
 not, but that even persecution has been overruled to our 
 good. Had John Bunyan not been persecuted, he would 
 
58 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 not now have been known. His Pilgrim's Progress was 
 written during his twelve years' confinement in prison for 
 heresy. It is the bruised rose that imparts the sweetest fra- 
 grance ; and the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the 
 church. Eighteen hundred years ago they led to be critci- 
 JiedoYLQ whom the chief priests called seditious and a blas- 
 phemer; but the efiects of his death, each succeeding year, 
 cause great joy in heaven, and great terror in hell ; for 
 the Hood of that just One is saving the world. It must 
 needs be that ofienses come ; but woe unto that man, of 
 whom the offense cometh. Institutions of learning are 
 erected ; colleges are built ; seminaries founded ; the 
 dead languages are studied ; the fields of science are 
 explored ; and students over the midnight lamp, pray 
 to heaven for aid, and seek for the deep things of 
 God, and yet, are forced to submit to have their intel- 
 lect chained to the chariot wheels of past generations, 
 and to receive such homeopathic doses of knowledge as 
 our stringent forefathers had obtained, or chose to com- 
 municate, and deigned to deal out to us as articles of 
 faith. Every phrase concerning God — every phrase con- 
 cerning the Son — every phrase concerning the Spirit — 
 every phrase concerning angels, has become stereotyped. 
 The supreme majesty of Jehovah must be worshiped 
 under the barbarous appellations of Triune ; Blessed 
 Trinity ; Three-one, God-man ; Second Person ; Third 
 Person : while Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omni- 
 presence, become the most common household phrases. 
 The time once was, when a Moses, or Joshua, in approach- 
 ing the heavenly majesty, took off their shoes ; the time 
 has since been that those who would thus dare investi- 
 gate a manifested deity, would j^wz^ off their lives. These 
 people have considered "ignorance as the mother of de- 
 votion," — devotion to a priest, — a golden calf, or to the 
 Virgin Mary, or patron saint. 
 
 In consequence of this interdict on the knowledge of 
 God, man has been driven from the most sublime sub- 
 ject of religion or philosophy; and the contemplation 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 59 
 
 of heavenly subjects has been rendered uninteresting, 
 and essa3'S upon that subject tame^ jejune^ and monoto- 
 nous^ while innumerable passages of Scripture, of most 
 vital importance, are abandoned as unintelligible. Igno- 
 rance has crushed the rising thought; bigotry has usurped 
 the throne of knowledge ; and truth has been sacrificed 
 to superstition. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Fourth reply : 
 
 This is the closing argument of the afternoon. The 
 first point, I believe, to which I have to invite your atten- 
 tion, is with regard to the assertion of my opponent, that 
 the majority of the IN'icene council, were not this body 
 of Christians here, but a similar body, representing the 
 same views, and this is constituted with the Trinitarian 
 creed, published by the council, staring him in the face. 
 He does not assume that it was this body of people, but 
 one holding similar sentiments ; and that this consti- 
 tuted the majority of the party at the time of this council. 
 With regard to the two natures in the person of Jesus 
 Christ ; he seems now rather desirous of getting free 
 from the position, which I stated in his wwds, " neither 
 of us said he believed that the human nature of Jesus 
 Christ existed in heaven, prior to his manifestation in 
 this world ; " this is an acknowledgment that there was 
 another nature, which was not human, and that that 
 which was not human, did not exist prior to its manifes- 
 tation on this earth ; and I know this position to be oc- 
 cupied by those entertaining similar views to my brother. 
 There is one point to which 1 would direct your attention ; 
 if there be a difficulty involved in the fact that there is 
 one God, and that that one may be composed of three 
 persons ; is there not an equal difficulty involved in the 
 fact that there may be two natures in Christ, and that 
 one may be composed of two different persons? for he 
 insists that it is a mere quibble in me, to say that the 
 human nature of Jesus Christ does not constitute a sepa- 
 rate person ; I assume, on the contrary, that he took upon 
 
60 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 him a nature, and identified with his person, making a 
 union with bis person, and that nature which he took upon 
 him was human, making with him, two separate and dis- 
 tinct natures, a manhood, and Godhead; this is the position 
 which I occupy, and the position wliich I have stated 
 from the first ; and if difficulty be involved in the fact, 
 that the Godhead is possessed of three persons, equal in 
 substance, power, and eternity, is there not an equal dif- 
 ficulty involved in the fact, that Christ had an existence 
 prior^o his manifestation in the flesh, and that his human 
 nature was not manifested prior to his appearance, and 
 that in Christ existed two persons, a divine person, and 
 a human pei-son? I assume, that Christ has authorized 
 us to treat the subject in this light ; he intimated the 
 existence of a manhood and a Godhead, in his nature, 
 in his language to the Jews, in John, viii, where he 
 says, "betbre Abraham was, I am." Calmefs explana- 
 tion ot this passage is, " I existed before the time of any 
 merely human creature ; you Jews perceive the man 
 Christ Jesus, which has appeared to you, which ye think 
 ye know ; but beside this outward person, there is a 
 divine nature, which subsisted in my person ; before 
 Abraham was, I am." Abraham saw him, treated him 
 as a Saviour, and predicted his coming into the world. 
 I give the preface of the learned Calmet, rendered by 
 Clarke, but from memory, however: he inquires, 
 "Whether there might not be two natures in a stick 
 of wood?" By submitting it to chemical analysis, it is 
 possible, this might be ascertained to be the fact ; and he 
 thus designs to pass ofi' these very serious difficulties of 
 the human and divine nature, with this supposition. 
 The word Trinity, I admit, does not occur in the Scrip- 
 tures; and I have no knowledge of the term ' Divine Son 
 of God,' occurring in the Bible ; if it occur, it is an 
 exceptional term. I meet with the term. Son of God ; 
 the disciples referred to him that spoke to the waves, as 
 a divine being — not only as a divine being, but as God 
 in the highest possible sense ; and, hence, I insist, that 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 61 
 
 in view of tliose passages, that while in his human nature 
 he claims equality with the Father, and was entitled to 
 it ; then, of course, there is a propriety in using such 
 terms as we do, in regard to the Trinity. My opponent 
 refers to some forty arguments, which, he believes, make 
 it impossible, that Jesus Christ could have been God ; 
 and he does hope that the brother will follow him. Now, 
 if I have not been laboring to follow him, I know not 
 what I have done ; I have regularly taken his arguments 
 in the order in which they were submitted, and attempted 
 to answer them. God, he says, has no body; but the 
 Son has a body. He set out, this morning, with the as- 
 sertion, that God had a body, and had become visible to 
 Moses ; and now he assumes that God has no body, but 
 Christ has a body; here Christ is not God. Well now, 
 if this prove anything, it proves too much ; he is not 
 God, for his God has no body. Now, I assume, that God, 
 as God, existed without a visible body, and that he might 
 have so existed to all eternity ; but God did descend to 
 take a visible body, in connection with Jesus Christ, as a 
 temple. Thus in this temple of humanity was embodied 
 the Godhead, for the express purpose, as we showed, for 
 the redemption and salvation of our race. 
 
 He said, God does not pray, but the 8on does ; there- 
 fore, he cannot be God. Now it is strange, that in the 
 face of our position, so clearly defined, he could so impose 
 upon his own mind, as to pass this off as an argument. 
 We have nowhere asserted that the human nature of 
 Jesus Christ is God. No Trinitarian ever assumed that 
 the human nature of Jesus Christ is God, but that the 
 Word, Logos, which was in the beginning with the 
 Father, was God, and is God ; and the distinction must 
 be maintained. We hold, then, that the human nature, 
 in its inferiority, in its subjection to the Father, is depen- 
 dant upon the Father ; it was a medium through which 
 blessings, and glory, could be conferred on our fallen 
 race ; it was the medium of communication between both 
 God and man; Christ in his human nature associated 
 
62 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TEIXITY. 
 
 with the divine nature, holding communication with the di- 
 vine nature ; and for this express purpose and design, a 
 union was constituted between God and human nature — 
 took upon himself not the nature of angels, but the seed of 
 Abraham, and was found in fashion as a man — became 
 obedient to death, even the death of the cross. He quotes 
 1 Cor. XV, 22, where "Christ is subject to the Father," then 
 shows that the Son submitted to the Father, that God may 
 be all in all. Here is a closing up of the mediatorial reign of 
 Jesus Christ ; judgment is set, and the condition of huma- 
 nity is sealed lor ever ; he that has been the mediator, now 
 becomes the judge. The Son has been subject to the 
 Father ; but now humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ, 
 holds communion with the Father. During man's pro- 
 bation, mercy triumphs ; justice is stayed ; vengeance is 
 withheld ; the day of mercy is extended to the rebel ; to 
 the hell-deserving, Christ is our surety in presence of the 
 Father, for he ever liveth to make intercession for us. 
 This is the point then. Then shall he cease to appear in 
 his vesture dipped in blood. Kow he ceases to exercise 
 his office of mediator ; he becomes judge of quick and 
 dead. The resun-ection of Christ was the triumph over 
 his enemies ; the accomplishment of his glorious designs, 
 and execution of the judgment of heaven upon those 
 who continue unbelievers. Kow hear the command of 
 Revelation : unto the Son he says, " thy throne, O God, 
 is forever and ever." Mark it. I will just turn to Dr. 
 Barnes,^. 58, ^'A throne is the seat on which a monarch 
 sits, and is here the symbol of dominion ; because kings, 
 when acting as mlers, sit on thrones. Thus a throne be- 
 comes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it 
 means, that his ride or dominion would be perpetual, or 
 'for ever and ever ; ' which assuredly could not be ap- 
 plied to Solomon. The phrase, ' O God,' could not be 
 applied to Solomon ; but applied to the Messiah, it proves 
 what the apostle is aiming to prove in that he is above 
 the angels." 
 
 Thus a throne becomes the emblem of authority or 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 empire ; and the position first occupied, that his reign 
 would be everlasting. 
 
 My brother intimates that there is very little original- 
 ity about me. Well, I suppose the condemnation is a just 
 one ; I am not disposed to call my good brother's judg- 
 ment in question — and if he manifests a little more origi- 
 nality, and ventures out a little further on his own 
 authority, I will do my best to follow him. God has no 
 equal. Philippians ii, 5, "Let this mind be in you." 
 " Thought it not robbery," &c. Now, the brother desired 
 that Christ and his brethren might not disagree. Well, 
 let that expression pass for what it is worth — I will leave 
 him, and Paul, to settle the difficulty ; " Christ thought it 
 not robbery;" but he says that God has no equal, can 
 have none ; now it does seem to me that a very serious 
 difficulty has arisen between Paul and my brother Sum- 
 mcrbell, and I leave him to settle the difficulty with Paul, 
 at his leisure. John v, 17, " My Father worketh hitherto, 
 and I work ;" he was equal with the Father, and on this 
 account the Jews undertook to stone liim, — they rejected 
 him on this account. John x, 30, "1 and my Father are 
 one." This was the position assumed by Jesus. They 
 had assumed the equality of Jesus with the Father from 
 this very position ; but the brother labors to explain it 
 away. In the passage quoted from John, I have shown 
 that the Jews understood, that when he assumed to be 
 the Son of God, he made himself equal with God, and on 
 this account they were disposed to stone him ; thus it was 
 no relief to them, when he said, " I am the Son of God." 
 John x, 37, " If I do not the works of my Father believe 
 me not ; and if I do, though ye believe not me, believe 
 the works, that ye may know, and believe, that the 
 Father is in me, and I in him." Now here are two motives 
 so fully expressed, that there can be no equivocation 
 respecting it. With these remarks on the unity of the 
 essential equality of Christ with God, let us now advert 
 to the charge, that we have not followed our opponent, 
 with the exception of a single point, of running over 
 
64 
 
 DlSCrSSIOX ox THE TRIXITY. 
 
 each of his forty-four arguments ; vre believe that they 
 have answered ail that has been advanced; his fort}'- 
 four arguments remind me of a poem that was written, 
 containing forty -four verses ; but it so happened that 
 every stanza had precisely the same words ; and so with 
 my brother's arguments ; — when one was answered, the 
 whole was answered ; here I deem it unnecessary to spend 
 time in answering, singly, the Jong catalogue that has 
 been presented. Xotice the assumption of Christ to 
 Philij?, John xiv, 9, "Have I been so long time with 
 thee, and hast tliou not known me, Philip ?" Hebrews i, 
 3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the ex- 
 press image of his person, who upholdeth all things by 
 the word of his power." Here, Christ is declared to be 
 the brightness of his Father s glory, and the express 
 image of his person ; in this way he is made manifest to 
 the world, as the Father revealed, and the only revela- 
 tion of the Father that has ever been made to the world. 
 The remarks of Mr. Barnes are very appropriate: 
 
 Barnes, p. 26. "The sun itself we do not see; the 
 beams that flow from it we do see. The m.eaning here 
 is, that if God be represented under a luminous body, as 
 he is in the Scriptures, (see Ps. Ixxiv, 11; Mai, iv, 2,) then 
 Christ is the radiance of that light — the brightness of that 
 luminary." 
 
 Here God is represented under the image of a lumin- 
 ous body ; Malachi iv, 2 ; "And unto you that fear my 
 name, shall the Sun of Pighteousness arise with healing 
 in his wings." This language also accords with John 
 xiv, 9, in the person of Jesus Christ, in the way that 
 would not have been possible, had he not been one with 
 the Father. Matthew xi, 27, "All things are delivered 
 unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but 
 the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save 
 the Son. and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 
 Kow whatever is revealed to us of God the Father, is 
 revealed to us through the Son; through him the rays, 
 so to speak, of divine nature, are manifested to the world ; 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 65 
 
 now the claim set up by yon, my brother, that Christ 
 and the Father can not dwell in one person, seems to be 
 entirely invented; the language of Christ, and the 
 language of the Apostle, will admit of no other fair con- 
 struction ; the equality of Christ with the Father is also 
 to be inferred from these appellations that are given to 
 Christ; 1st John v, 20, "And we know that the Son of 
 God has come, and hath given us an understanding, that 
 we may know him that is true, and we are in him that 
 is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ; this is the true 
 God, and eternal life." What could be more pointed than 
 this ? Jude i, 23, To the only wise God, our Saviour, 
 be glory, and majesty, dominion, and power, both now, 
 and forever." If that does not declare the essential 
 equality of Christ, with the Father, in substance, in 
 power, in glory, and in eternity, I know not what lan- 
 guage could. Eevelation xvii, 14, "These shall make 
 war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, 
 for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings." Revelation 
 xix, 13, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in 
 blood, and his name is called the Word of God." Rev. 
 xix, 18, "And he hath on his vesture, and on his thigh 
 a name written: King of kings, and Lord of lords." Rev. 
 xxii, 13, "I am Alpha, and Omega, the beginning, and 
 the end ; the first, and the last." Of what being could 
 this be asserted, I am the first, and I am the last, but of 
 God ? Can such language be applicable to any other ? by 
 what created or descended being, could it be assumed that 
 he was the first, and the last ? this agrees with the lan- 
 guage of the apostle, w^here he says, "Thou art the same, 
 and thy years shall not fail ; but those who press on to 
 destruction, and will not be under his direction, and 
 authority," he says, " as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
 up, and they shall be changed ;" but change is not to be 
 inferred, with regard to Christ; he is unchangeable, 
 immutable; he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for 
 ever. Barnes, p. 43. "The apostle says, Thou art the 
 same. Thou wilt not change and thy years shall not 
 6 
 
66 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 fail. Thou wilt exist forever unchanged. What could 
 more clearly prove that he, of whom this is spoken, is 
 immutable ? Yet it is undoubtedly spoken of the Messiah, 
 and must demonstrate that he is divine. 
 
 Mr. Sum^ieebixl's Fifth address : 
 
 Kind friends — We are happy to address you again this 
 morning, and happy that we have such a pleasant feeling 
 manifested in this discussion. I think that my brother 
 loves me a little better than when we first met here ; and I 
 am sure that I love him more. If the love increases, it 
 will be a happy discussion indeed. 
 
 My brother quotes the text, " I have power to lay down 
 my life,*' etc., to show that Christ had great power, and 
 hence, must be God. But Jesus says, " this command- 
 ment have I received of my Father." I want my brother 
 to remember this point, viz : Jesus received all power of 
 the Father. My iDrother now states plainly, that he has 
 but a human sacrifice. The Christians have been 
 preached against, by Trinitarians, for years, eiToneously 
 charged with having only a human Saviour — a human 
 sacrifice. But now, my brother has renouced all idea of 
 a divine Mediator. He denies the eternal Son ; that is, 
 positively denies that the Son is God, or divine ; and 
 consequently, by his own showing, he ought not to 
 worship him. But the angels of God worship him, and 
 worship him as the only begotten Son. Heb. i, 8. I 
 want my brother to clear up this passage. He now has 
 but a man mediator ; all the person he has between God 
 and m.an, is simply a man. A man to make an infinite 
 atonement ; a man for a sacrifice ; a man to trust for 
 salvation ; and yet, the Scriptures say, cursed is he that 
 trusteth in man, or maketh flesh his arm ! " Perhaps my 
 brother will not trust in this man, with "delegated 
 power,*' as he expresses it. I do not know, but it is all 
 the security he has. What will he do ? Our Trinitarian 
 friends have always contended that Christ must be omni- 
 Bcient, to be able to judge the world; but as a man, he 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 67 
 
 could not have been omniscient ; and the Son is only 
 man, Clarke says, and ray brother agrees with Clarke ; 
 consequently, the second person in the Trinity is only a 
 man, and they baptize in the name of the Father, of the 
 Holy Ghost, and of a man. He divides Jesus into God 
 and man ; but still it is the man that died for him, 
 suffered for him, and was crucified for him. A man is 
 his mediator ; it is a man that pleads in heaven for him. 
 It is a man, according to my brother, to whom God says, 
 Heb. i, 8, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." 
 And now, I want to know whether my brother will 
 worship this man^ that does so much for him ; bleeds for 
 him, suffers for him, mediates for him ; or whether he 
 only worships a part of his Jesus ; and if so, what part 
 he can worship and not be idolatrous ? How far can he 
 go ? How can he tell just where he must stop ? Where 
 do we cross the line in worshiping Jesus, and become 
 idolaters ? Let my brother define ; for it is a dreadful 
 thing to be an idolater. 
 
 He says that the man Jesus does all this for him 
 simply as man. Perhaps he will ask me if I do not 
 believe him to be man. I answer, yes, but not " very 
 man," as per creed. But the second man is the Lord 
 from heaven, 1 Cor. xv, 47 — no " mere man " — no " very 
 man it is no simple humanity with me, but the Lord 
 from heaven. You can not help noticing my brother's 
 manner in making quotations. If he goes to Mosheim, 
 he is in danger of destroying all his argument by reading 
 a line too much. You all noticed how he came near 
 losing all his argument, by aline too much from Barnes ; 
 and refuted all tliat he said, with reference to John x, 
 34, by quoting the lohole verse, through mistake. He 
 quotes " I have power to lay down my life," and stops 
 short, for if he finished the sentence, it is, " this com- 
 mandment I received of my Father ; " so my brother is 
 obliged to cut it off, to save his argument. Should we not 
 abandon a system which we would thus destroy by 
 quoting a text too much, or even a whole text ? 
 
68 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TEIXITY. 
 
 I will now go on reviewinor his texts of Scripture, and 
 it will be better for him also to follow me, instead of 
 going off on affirmative propositions, as he is coDstautlv 
 doing. He quotes 1 John v, 20, " And we know that 
 the Son of God is come, and hath given ns an nnder- 
 standing that we may know him that is tnie, and we are 
 in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ. This 
 is the true God, and eternal life.-' ^s"ow, John says that 
 Jesus has given ns this understanding that we may know 
 him that is true ; so as Jesus is a good commentator, 
 we will go to him. Where, then, does he give us this 
 understanding ? See John xvii, 1-3. where Jesus says, 
 Father, this is life eternal, that they might know thee the 
 only true God.'' Jesus then says that the Father is this 
 only true God ; but my brother contradicts him, by saying 
 that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true 
 God as the Father. Xow were I, on coming into this 
 place, to inquire for a blacksmith, and one were to inform 
 me that Richard Roe was the only blacksmith in the 
 place, and another were to tell me that two other persons 
 were just as traly blacksmiths as he, surely the latter 
 would contradict the former. And precisely so does my 
 brother's theory contradict the Saviour on this text. 
 
 1. My brother quotes Rev. xix, 16. ^' And he hath on 
 his thigh a name written. King of Kixgs and Lord of 
 Lords,'' and says that he is called the word of God. But 
 God is not called tlie word of God^ My brother 
 quotes texts on my side of the question, and I am willing 
 to let him have all that he can gain from them. Jesus 
 Christ is the word of God, the Lord of lords, and the 
 King of kings. 
 
 2. My brother next quotes, I am AJplia and Omega, 
 Who is Alpha and Omega ? (See Rev. xx, 9-13.) Wes- 
 ley says that Jesus Christ being Alpha and Omega, 
 signifies that he is the beginning and end of the Gospel 
 dispensation, or as the Apostle says, " the author and the 
 finisher of our faith." Xot the first and last being that 
 will exist. All your creeds say that Christ is the Son of 
 
DiscTTssiON o^r the trestty. 
 
 69 
 
 the Father ; and Clarke says that if he is the Son of God, 
 the Father must have been prior, and of necessity 
 superior to him. Lnke i, 35^ 'Sow if the Son was the 
 first, then he existed before the Father, and if he is to be 
 the last being that exists, then must not only all angels 
 and men be annihilated, but also the Father and the 
 Holv Ghost. God himself must cease to exist. These 
 texts have nothing to do with the subject, and my brother 
 does not understand them. 
 
 3. He says that Christ is unchangeable. But his God 
 cannot be unchangeable, if, as he says, " God had existed 
 from all eternity without a body, but that he finally took 
 a body ; " for this implies a very great change. 
 
 4. 'My brother has now admitted that God has a body. 
 But his creed, or constitution and Discipline, says that 
 God has not a body. Here he abandons his creed and 
 gives God a body. This makes great havoc of the creed, 
 which he promised to defend ! 
 
 5. He next quotes John xiv, 9. "He that hath seen 
 me hath seen the Father." But, I ask, what did Philip 
 see ? The invisible spirit or the outward body ? Did he 
 not simply see the " man " — very man — as my brother 
 calls it ^ No man hath seen God, at any time, or 
 can see him. What did Philip see, according to my 
 brothers theory, but the human nature ? Those visible 
 eyes, cheeks, lips, face ; were they God's ? Did Philip 
 literally see the Father i Did he even see the inward, 
 invisible spirit ? Or did he only see this as manifested 
 in the flesh ? My brother felt this difficulty, and went 
 to Barnes for help. But here again, help failed him, 
 for Barnes agrees with us. He says, " hath seen the 
 Father " cannot refer to the essence of God, but to the 
 manifestation of him. The Son of God is the manifesta- 
 tion of God in the flesh, the brightness of his glory 
 and the express image of his person. Heb. i, 3. As at 
 the decline of day. when the sun is sinking behind the 
 western hills, while standing upon the eastern shore of 
 the glassy lake, you see, deep down in its crystal waters, 
 
70 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 the image of the sun — yet not another sun, but the 
 brightness of its glory and the express image of its 
 appearance — so do we see God in Jesus Christ. And 
 thus the fathers were wont to speak of him — and thus we 
 also regard him. 
 
 6. My forty-four arguments, my brother answers barely 
 by relating an anecdote of a man who wrote forty-four 
 stanzas, all just alike, so that to read one was to read all. 
 But I leave it to this intelligent audience, whether my 
 forty-four arguments were not forty-four distinct proposi- 
 tions. And now, I demand of my brother to either 
 answer them, or to confess his inability to do so. 
 
 7. On the prayer of Jesus, John 17th chapter, my 
 brother says, that it was the humanity of Jesus praying 
 to the divinity. Does he find this in the Mormon Bible ? 
 I am sure that it is not in ours. Surely, if he can get 
 along so well without a Bible, it was all folly to give him 
 a Bible. What need has he of a Bible, when he can 
 find so much of his religion outside of it ? But let us 
 now have a sample of his interpretation of Scripture. 
 It was the humanity, he says, praying to the divinity, 
 that is, to God ; but God and Christ are but one person, 
 he says, consequently, Christ's prayer was to his own 
 person, and equivalent to saying " O myself, glorify 
 myself with myself, with the glory that 1 myself had 
 with myself before the world was.'' John chap. xvii. 
 Did Jesus pray to himself? Did humanity have gloiy 
 with God before the world was ? Yerse 2 2d, The 
 glory which thou gavest me." Did God give his glory 
 to the humanity — to a creature ? 
 
 Indeed my brother says, that I at first said that I believed 
 that God had a body, and that I now say, that he has no 
 hody. Ko I I quoted Exodus, xxxiii, 23, to show that 
 the creed contradicted God. The creed says, God has 
 no parts : but God said to Moses, " Thou shalt see my 
 back parts." It is God, and not me, that my brother's 
 difficulty is with. The question, in this discussion, is not 
 on what I believe, but what my brother believes. Is 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 n 
 
 his creed right ? He quotes John x 34, to prove that 
 Christ is equal with God. Here the infidel Jews said 
 that Christ made himself equal with God, but Jesus 
 denied it, showing that those to whom the word of God 
 came, were called gods ; while he only said that he was 
 the Son of God. But he says, that Paul says, that Christ 
 is equal with God ; and wants me to settle it with Paul. 
 No ; Paul did not say so, but the uninspired translators ; 
 as I proved by Dr. Macknight ; authority which he dare 
 not deny, and of whom I ever wish to speak with pro- 
 found respect ; isa signifies likeness; not ison^ equality. 
 Phil, ii, 6. Therefore, my brother must settle it on his 
 own side of the house. I wish you to remember that I 
 do not give my own exposition of texts, but the very 
 highest authority on the orthodox side ! Heb. i, 8, he 
 Bays that the Son is not eternal. What then means the 
 expression, "Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God ! " 
 Let my brother settle this. I never degrade my Saviour 
 by calling him simple humanity — very man — human 
 nature ! He does, and he should account for this. How 
 is it that a man. is called God l 
 
 Acts xvii, he quotes that God will judge the world by 
 iliat man^ to prove that Christ is very raanP But 
 Paul, who uses this language, says, not that this was 
 very man ; but the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv, 3-i. 
 I saw, when he was giving this, that he did not like it 
 himself. He was very slow in his delivery, and you 
 could hardly catch what it was that he meant. "^He 
 changes his ground, but can not remove the diflSculty 
 out of his way. The Bible has the diflSculties, which they 
 must explain away, and so they fly from the Bible to 
 man, to explain them. Now, I believe that God has 
 given us a Bible which is not so full of difficulties, if we 
 will only believe it, as God has given it. But if we have 
 to twist the Bible to suit our creed, we might as well 
 have none, and depend upon the creed altogether. Eev. 
 Mr. Hunt, a Kew-School Presbyterian, was asked the 
 difierence between the New-School and the Old-School. 
 
72 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 He replied, " The New-School explains the creed accord- 
 ing to the Bible ; but the Old- School explains the Bible 
 according to the creed." I frankly confess that I admire 
 the New-School method most. But my brother don't 
 like delegated power. Macknight says, on Eom. ix, 5, 
 " It need not surprise us that Christ in the flesh is called 
 God over all, etc., since God hath highly exalted him 
 in the human nature, and given him a name above every 
 name. Phil, ii, 9. And hath put all things under his 
 feet. 1 Cor. xv, 27. And will judge the world in right- 
 eousness by that man, etc. Acts xvii, 31. This looks 
 like delegated powder He says that he can not trust 
 Christ, if he has delegated power ; what will he do ? I 
 think that my brother will be satisfied with this, but if he 
 desires more, he can have it. Again, he accuses me of 
 saying that God has a body. He misunderstands me. I 
 only contrasted his saying, in one place, God has a body, 
 and in another, God has not a body. 
 
 He does not recollect the term. Divine Son of God in 
 the Bible. No ! it is not of our coining, nor is it in our 
 creed. They propose it, and we do not deny it. He 
 quotes, " Before Abraham w^as I am." But as the Chris- 
 tians all believe that Christ existed before Abraham, this 
 does not touch our difierence. 
 
 But he says that he thinks that he has some comfort, 
 (and I was pleased to hear him say so,) in a supposed 
 difficulty in my union of two natures in Christ, and 
 wishes to make it answer as an offset for the contradiction 
 of there being three divine persons in God. But my 
 brother is mistaken. I know of no such union as that 
 he calls the two natures of Christ. I know of no human 
 soul in Christ ; he was made of the seed of David, ac- 
 cording to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God, 
 according to the Spirit, &c. Rom. i, 3. The first Chris- 
 tians believed that the pre-existent Spirit, the Son of God, 
 was in Christ's body as the soul of that body — a divine, 
 and not a human soul. 
 
 He asks, " Why did the majority of the Council of 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Nice draw up a Trinitarian creed ?" They did not, as 
 all the world knows. There is no Trinitarianism in the 
 Nicene creed. Those upon whom my brother relies as 
 Trinitarian fathers, had not yet decided whether the 
 Spirit was an angel, the only begotten of the Father 
 through the Son, or simply the Spirit of God. See 
 Neander, i, 609. 
 
 I will now present you a brief view of the difference 
 between us and the Trinitarians, by which you will see 
 that the difference between them and us, is the difference 
 between them and the Bible. Cast away their sectarian 
 creed phraseology — renounce the unscriptural words — 
 and we are one. God grant that Christians of all denom- 
 inations may soon be one, even as the Father and the 
 Son are one. John xvii, 22. 
 
 Miscalled Orthodox Doctrines compared with Chris- 
 . tian Doctrine and the Bible. 
 
 THET HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 
 
 1. DISCIPLINE. 
 
 2. Trinity. 
 
 3. Triune. 
 
 4. God ig Three. 
 
 5. God ia three Lords. 
 
 6. His name three. 
 
 7. Holy Three. 
 
 8. God the Son. 
 
 9. God the Spirit. 
 
 10. The God man. 
 
 11. God died for us. 
 
 12. Christ is the eternal 
 
 God. 
 
 13. Worship the Trinity. 
 
 14. God is reconciled to 
 
 men. 
 
 15. God received the Atone- 
 
 ment. 
 
 16. The true worshipers 
 
 shall worship the 
 Trinity. 
 
 17. When ve pray say, 
 
 "HolyTrinity"-Epi3- 
 copal Pr. Book. 
 
 18. To us there is but one 
 
 God, the Son. 
 
 7 
 
 WE HOLD A3 FOLLOWS. 
 
 BIBLE. 
 
 God. 
 
 One. 
 
 God is one. 
 
 God is one Lord. 
 
 His name is one. 
 
 Holy one. 
 
 The Son of God. 
 
 The Spirit of God. 
 
 God is not a man. 
 
 This was the Son of God. 
 
 Christ is God's. 
 
 Worship God. 
 
 We are reconciled to God. 
 
 BIBLE DECrOES. 
 
 Matt. XV, 9. 
 Gen. i, L 
 
 Gal. iii, 20. 
 Deut, vi, 4. 
 Zech. xiv, 9. 
 Isaiah xii, 6. 
 John XX, 31. 
 Gen. i, 2. 
 Num. xxiii, 19. 
 Matt, xxrii, 54. 
 1 Cor. iii, 21. 
 
 Rev. xxii, 9. 
 Ptom. V, 10. 
 
 We received the atonement. Rom. v, 11. 
 
 The true worshipers shall John iv, 23. 
 worship the Father. 
 
 When ye pray say. Our Luke xi, 2. 
 Father, which art in hea- 
 ven. 
 
 To us there is but one God, 1 Cor. viii, 6. 
 the Father of whom are 
 all things. 
 
74 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TIUNITY. 
 
 THEY HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 
 
 19. The Son and Holy 
 
 Ghost are as much 
 the true God as the 
 Father. 
 
 20. We have no God but 
 
 Jesus. 
 
 21. Christ is equal with God. 
 
 22. Christ has all power in- 
 
 dependent. 
 
 23. He performed all his 
 
 works by his own 
 power. 
 
 24. His works prove him 
 
 God. 
 
 25. He worked all his mir- 
 
 acles in his own name. 
 
 26. God died. 
 
 27. There is but one in 
 
 heaven. 
 
 28. Christ is very man. 
 
 WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. BIBLE DECIDES, 
 
 Father — that they might John xvii, 1, 3. 
 know THEE, the only 
 true God. 
 
 I ascend to my God and to John xx, 17. 
 your God. 
 
 My Father is greater than 1. John xiv, 28. 
 All power is given unto me. Matt, xxviii, 18. 
 
 I can of mine own self do John t, 30. 
 nothing. 
 
 He that believeth on me John xiv, 12. 
 greater works tian these 
 shall he do. 
 The works that I do, I do John x, 25. 
 
 in my Father's name. 
 My God, why hast thou for- Matt, xxvii, 46. 
 
 saken me. 
 Christ sitteth on the right Col. iii, 1. 
 
 hand of God. 
 The Gospel preached by Gal. i, 1, 11, 12. 
 me is not after man. 
 
 We submit this to my brother, but in much love, as 
 an excuse, if I may so speak, for cleaving to God's Holy 
 Word ; that when he sees how widely discipline religion 
 differs from the Bible, he may not, hereafter, blame us for 
 cleaving to the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, and 
 not trusting to the commandments of men. Should we 
 leave our Scripture doctrine for such doctrines ? ! ! 
 
 Mr. Flood's Fifth reply : 
 
 I think it proper to make an allusion to the fragment 
 quoted yesterday and this morning from Dr. Watts, so 
 as to relieve my brother from the necessity of quoting it 
 again ; the line reads, " God, the mighty Maker, died." 
 Poets take great liberties at times — great latitude of ex- 
 pression; it is not, however, in our doctrine or consti- 
 tution. No Methodist divine ever believed that God died ; 
 no Methodist minister ever taught such a sentiment. I 
 want to relieve my brother of this labor — for it is giving 
 him a great deal of concern — lest he should quote !t a 
 dozen and one times, that it was but the mere privilege 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TEINITY. 
 
 70 
 
 of a poet ; it is a thing not believed by any body that God 
 died ; it is not the doctrine of Methodists, or Pres- 
 byterians, nor is it received in any creed under the 
 heavens. He then refers to my quotation, " I have power 
 to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." 
 He, doubtless, conceives that he has, at least to his own 
 satisfaction, fully refuted the argument of the Omnipo- 
 tence of Jesus Christ, " This commandment have I re- 
 ceived of my Father.'' jS^ow, I have not learned that 
 commandment is, in itself, power ; if it is, then, perhaps, 
 my brother has furnished a sufficient reason. I have 
 power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it 
 again. It does not assume that he has the power delegated 
 to him, it simply says, this commandment have I received 
 of my Father. Now, I design to show that the Son is 
 not independent of the Father, nor the Father of the Son, 
 but they act as one, for they are one. He says that 
 he understands that they have denied Clarke, since he 
 has gotten them into this difficulty. Well, what ima- 
 ginary difficulty Clarke has foUen into, I am not pre- 
 pared to say. I have not discovered, however, that 
 Clarke had been found in any difficulty during this dis- 
 cussion ; there are those here, I understand, who delight 
 in blowing horns. In advance of this discussion, it was 
 announced that your humble servant would be used up 
 before the close of the first day, and might as well go 
 home ; their next design is to put their old friend to rout, 
 having understood that he has abandoned his position. 
 Some of my opponent's friends have spoken of him as a 
 second Luther — able to vanquish not only his opponent, 
 but Dr. Clarke himself. The field, they say, is fully 
 possessed by the enemy, and the standard-bearer waves 
 his banner under the name and title of Luther the 
 Second. Mr. S. says. Dr. Clarke diflered from Watts, 
 and others, on the essential deity and sonship of Jesus 
 Christ, as well as relative to the period when Christ be- 
 came properly known as a Son. This difficulty, we 
 tranquilly acknowledge, has at all times existed. Clarke 
 
76 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 "was never officially received by the British Conference 
 as a Methodist commentator — he never received their 
 official sanction ; but in Europe and America he has been 
 universally respected for his greatness of mind, his ex- 
 tensive enlightenment, and his most unequaled literary 
 attainments ; and for the happy influence which his com- 
 mentary has had in leading to a correct understanding 
 of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ; and 
 Clarke, he says, abandons our position ! Tell it not in 
 Gath / No author in the Methodist community, though 
 not officially indorsed, taken as a whole, commands 
 more universal respect among Methodist divines as a 
 commentator, and especially as a book of reference, than 
 does Dr. Clarke. Next, says my opponent, with regard 
 to Jesus Christ, that he is a man — that he is the Lord 
 from heaven — not very man. Man, but not very man. 
 That qualifying phrase seems to be quite ofi'ensive to my 
 brother. If I sought to strengthen, by a single word, 
 the qualifying phrase, the affirmation that my respected 
 and worthy brother w^as a man of principle and integrity, 
 I might say he is a man, a very man. Should I be out 
 of place in expressing my conviction in his manhood, by 
 the use of such a phrase ? I leave him to settle the dif- 
 ficulty w^hich seems to have arisen. He says, he allows 
 me to be in the affirmative. Everything I have deemed 
 essential to the argument, I have invariably answered, or 
 shall answer, in the course of this debate ; but in view 
 of the fact that my brother has his portfolio here, full of 
 manuscripts, w^hich he has been writing, perhaps, for a 
 year, or wdiich he has copied — and I might style my 
 brother so far a copyist. I supposed I had come here to 
 meet the reverend Mr. Summerbell on the merits of this 
 important question, but I find he is occupying the greater 
 portion of our time in reading matters that are irrelevant 
 to this controversy ; and if I do not see proper to follow 
 him in' his quotations from the musty volumes he has 
 chosen to cite from, it will not be because his arguments 
 are unanswerable, but because I deem them irrelevant. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRrJsITY. 
 
 7T 
 
 My brother fjoes on to say, they have three Gods aud 
 not one. My brother will 'simply allow me to deny it. 
 Trinitarians have, in no age of the world, assumed that 
 they had three Gods. The doctrine of the unity of the 
 Godhead, is a doctrine universally advocated and sup- 
 ported by consistent Trinitarians. 
 
 He next alludes to the text, I am the first, and I am 
 the last," and then he supposes that if this applies to 
 the pei-son of Jesus Christ, it must annihilate the divine, 
 and depopulate the whole earth ; and that the world must 
 sink into nonenity, and Christ must remain the last and 
 only being, if the passage applies to him. 
 
 I understood this to be the construction he gave to it. 
 All I designed to prove, was the essential eternity of 
 Jesus Christ, " I am the beginning and the end — the first 
 and the last.-' I only used this passage to show that 
 Jesus Christ possessed eternity, being the beginning and 
 end, the first and the last — that he existed before any mere 
 creature ; in other words, I am the Creator. In saying 
 I am the last, it does not follow that others may not be 
 the last with him ; for though it be true of angels and of 
 men, there was a time when they did not exist ; and 
 hence infinity can not be applied to angels or men. That 
 which relates to an existence, which is finite, is that 
 which will come to an end ; that which is infinite, is that 
 which will endure for ever. Absolute infinity, therefore, 
 can not be applied to angels and men, because there was 
 a time when they did not exist ; they live on, and live 
 for ever. When earth shall stagger under the weight of 
 accumulated ages, and the sun runs his course, and ceases 
 to emit his rays, and becomes utter darkness, and the 
 moon no more takes her silvery walk through the heavens, 
 and the last twinkling star shall be plucked from its 
 socket, by the hand that formed it, still angels and men 
 live on, and live for ever. 
 
 With reference to the term unchangeable, I used it with 
 regard to the essential existence of the Deity. He is an 
 unchangeable God, the same yesterday, to-day, and for 
 
78 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 ever ; and if he sees proper to communicate his perfec- 
 tions by taking upon himself human nature, by which 
 he might develop those perfections, it is no change in 
 the Deity — it is only resuming the relation which ren- 
 ders him tangible to his creatures, in their fallen condi- 
 tion; hence our God, in the person of Jesus Christ, 
 Word or Logos, having taken upon him human nature, 
 remains the same unchanged and unchangeable God, yes- 
 terday, to-day, and for ever. lie refers again to Hebrews 
 i, 8, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." My 
 brother says that I asserted that the Son is not God. 
 When did his brother say so ? I would like to know. 
 How often shall I inform my brother that the divine na- 
 ture and human nature are inseparably united in one 
 person, not in two separate and distinct persons ; that the 
 Word, or Logos^ united the humanity with the divinity, 
 in one person, in Jesus Christ? How often shall I 
 repeat this interesting and soul-cheering truth, that Jesus 
 Christ is God and man, united together in one person, in 
 accordance with the article which we are defending here, 
 never to be separated permanently. The brother thinks 
 that he can illustrate this by an anecdote about the Old 
 and xS ew School Presbyterians — the one interpreting the 
 creed to suit the Bible ; and the other interpreting the 
 Bible to suit the creed. It is not paying much of a com- 
 pliment to the Old School Presbyterians. He says he 
 would rather favor the course of the iSIew School bretliren, 
 in interpreting their creed to suit the Bible. 
 
 Now I might feel the same toward you ; whether the 
 creed lives in his head, or in a book, if it could be made 
 to suit the Bible, it would be a great gratification to my 
 mind. That is my object, to lead him to see and inter- 
 pret his views, that they will harmonize with tl>e teach- 
 ings of the Bible, which declare that Jesus Christ is God, 
 and that Jesus Christ is man; and, again, that God- 
 head and manhood are united together in the person of 
 Christ. Now, if this Bible truth could be written in his 
 creed, either in head, heart, or book, it would be a great 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. X9 
 
 cofisolatioh to our auditors. He alludes to the petition 
 where the manhood addresses the divinity ; the Son prays 
 to the divinity, saying, " Oli ! my Divinity, glorify thou 
 me,'' &c. Now, have I not repeatedly informed my 
 brother, that the Word, or Logos^ which is the Second 
 person, is identified in the person with the Son Jesus 
 Christ, the Word, or Logos, in connection with humanity, 
 which constitutes the Son of God, being united in one per- 
 son, in this petition, would be addressing the great Source 
 from whom emanates the redeeming grace ; he is the great 
 prevailing cause of our redemption. Having accomplished 
 this, his work, he now prays, "Glorify thou me with 
 thine own self— with the glory that 1 had with thee before 
 the world was ; when I existed with thee as the Word, 
 or Logos ; when I was surrounded with the rapturous 
 song of heavenly voices ; when I was not associated, as 
 I am now, with this world of woe and misery ; when I 
 was known in the prospective light of prophecy — as the 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ; 1 have drank 
 the cup of grief to its very dregs ; I have not refused to 
 do anything which thou hast sent me to do ; I have com- 
 pleted the work," — as though he had said, as the pro- 
 curing cause of man's redemption, — "now that thou 
 bast expressed thy love to the world in sending me to 
 do this work, glorify thou me with the glory I had with 
 thee before the world was." "For God so loved the 
 w^orld, (Jo(p iii, 16,) that he gave his only-begotten Son." 
 Here we have an expression concerning Him from whom 
 issued the plan of redemption, and the ground of it; 
 it was the love of God the Father, for a fallen race. 
 Even Christ himself, in alluding to these manifestations 
 of the Father's love, does not presume to explain the 
 extent or magnitude of the benevolence and love of God 
 to man. As Clarke remarks, he leaves an eternity of 
 meaning on the little particle, " So." " God so loved the 
 world." Now, this love having been fully evinced in 
 my submission to the divine law, in offering my life as 
 a ransom for a perishing world. Now, "glorify thou 
 
80 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 me, with the glory I had with thee," ttc, turning to this 
 theme of exaltation, " and of boundless love, which I 
 had with thee betbre the world was.*' Brother S. alludes 
 to the reference I made yesterday, with respect to the 
 terms, Divine Son of God. I do not make this as an 
 objection to the term. I merely balanced it against his, 
 with respect to the term Trinity, which my brother has 
 used, in this discussion, a number of times, if my memory 
 serves me right. 
 
 With respect to the sermon preached here last night 
 by a brother of our church, I remark, I bad hoped my 
 good brother Summerbell would have occupied this pul- 
 pit to preach what he conceived to be the Gospel of 
 Christ, and he would have preached without interruption. 
 He conceives an attack was made upon his belief, by the 
 brother who preached : he says, if -anything is to be ob- 
 jected to, give it in open daylight. He insinuates that 
 some one is afraid of dayliglit ; he says, if objections are 
 made let them form part of the debate. It is an unjust 
 insinuation. 
 
 Our brother, last night, might have made some allusion 
 to the new doctrines held by my brother SummerbelPs peo- 
 ple. The brother who delivered that sermon asserts, that 
 Flood did not request that he should preach on any given 
 subject. Brother Flood, therefore, stands free ; whatever 
 may be the insinuation of my brother, I will be as calm as 
 a summer-sun — I assure you, brother, the i^fa of alarm 
 has never taken hold of my soul — so I hope there will be 
 no concern upon that subject. If I scare — I will scare so 
 desperately bad that my legs will not carry me away. 
 My opponent alludes to what he conceives to be our 
 belief, namely, that God is three. We say God is one. 
 He quotes an array of passages to prove he is one. All 
 of which we believe, I maintain, as rigidly as any man 
 that lives — the unity of the Godhead — of three persons in 
 one. Xot three Gods, nor as my opponent says, a great 
 God and a little God. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 8f 
 
 Mr. SuiiMERBELL's Sixth address ; 
 
 My brother made a bad allusion to my arguments. 
 I support my arguments by the very highest authority on 
 my brother's side: but my argument is original. If he 
 meant that I am a copyist, 1 deny it. I wish to remain good 
 friends with my brother ; but he must avoid such charges 
 in the future ; if he is alarmed at the size of my port- 
 folio I will leave it at home, to soothe his feelings. He 
 relies upon more questionable aid, and when you suppose 
 him to be quoting Scripture, he is reading the " Scrip- 
 ture Manual yet, would he believe even that, he would 
 relieve me of much difficulty in con-ecting him. He now 
 says that the words When God, the mighty. Maker died," 
 are only a poetic effusion. But he knows that thousands 
 of people believe them. His own creed teaches the same 
 doctrine: '^Whereof is one Christ veiy God and very 
 man, which tnily suffered, was dead and buried." And 
 my brother's own interpretation of Scripture confii-ms it. 
 He quotes " I have power to lay down my life and I have 
 power to take it again, to prove that Christ was God." 
 Christ says this, commandment have 1 received of my 
 Father. He refers to my saying, that Clarke was in dif- 
 ficulty; I alluded to his being abandoned last night ; I have 
 nothing against Clarke, and I am sure I do not wish his 
 friends to Ibrsake him. My brother pronounced a eulogy 
 on him, which is very well. I regard Clarke as a veiy 
 learned man, and an able commentator ; and although 
 they may appeal to Watson, yet Clarke is a much more 
 able man than Watson, or Benson ; and the Methodists 
 generally so regard him. Christ is called man, but he is 
 never called ''very man" in the Bible. If they mean, 
 what Paul means by man, why alter his words ? If 
 "very" makes no difference, why put it there? The 
 Lord is called a husbsnnhnan. and a ?nan of war, but he 
 is not "veiy man." Gabriel is called a man, but he is 
 not " very man." My brother accuses me of saying, that 
 they have three Gods. If I said they professed to believe 
 in three Gods, I did not mean it. I have proved that 
 
82 
 
 DISCUSSION OX TEE TFJXITT. 
 
 thev hold the Son inferior to the Father: but he says, 
 that Christ, being Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
 last, means that he will Ije the last to exist, bnt that 
 othere also will be last I I like TTeslev's view, that Christ 
 is the first and the last in the GosjxjI dispensation ; or as 
 the Apostle has it still better, that '* he is the author and 
 finisher of our faith.-' I still insist that my brother tell 
 us, how God could create the worlds by his Son, Heb. i, 
 1-3 : if he had no Son until eighteen hundred years ago ? 
 The creed, or constitution, and Discipline says, that God 
 is without body ; but my brother now says, that God took 
 a l>-xiy. He says, that the Word, which was with God, 
 was not the i^erson ; but tliat the 7nan^ very man, was 
 the iXTSC'n begotten. Thus making Christ two persons. 
 He says, the Jews rightly considered the words "Son of 
 God,'' as equal with God ; and yet he pi*onounces the 
 term Divine Son, exceptionable. 
 
 He next quotes, Philip, ii, 6. '* He thought it not i*ob- 
 bery to be equal with Gc>d.'' If that was God, then God 
 '•made himself of no reputation, and became obedient to 
 death, even the death of the cross.** ]S!^ow is not that a 
 change i Does my brother l3elieve that God died on the 
 cross i He now says, that though the two natures were 
 inseparably united ; they were separated three days and 
 three nights. VeiT well I The creed says they were 
 joined 'never to be divided. How does my brother know 
 that they may not be divided again ? My brother doubles 
 and crosses his track too often. One day it is one thing ; 
 and another day it is another thing. He must realize it, 
 and open his eyes to the contradictory nature of his doc- 
 trine. I i-ead my brother twenty -seven distinct propo- 
 sitions, showing how their docti'ine positively conti-adicts 
 the Bible. I waut him to explain, and show that they do 
 not — if he can. 
 
 He says that the Bible declares that Jesus is both God 
 and man ; let him produce the texts, and I will attend to 
 them. 
 
 He says, that when Christ prayed, that it was the Word 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 83 
 
 or Logos, praying to the first great Cause. Did I not 
 tell you that he did not believe in the equality of the 
 Son with the Father ? And here now, he has God, the 
 Logos, praying to the Father ; showing that they are not 
 equal. I hold different views of God, than to suppose 
 that lie prays. He says that the plan of salvation origin- 
 ated with tile Father ; but he also says, that Jesus is the 
 author of the gospel. 
 
 My brother has a way of putting words into Jesus' 
 mouth, and speaking for him ; but that is not Scripture. 
 He says, that some one called me a second Luther ; this 
 is the first I have heard it. He says, that he must see 
 deeper waters, etc. I gave my brother twenty-seven pro- 
 positions on a paper ; and he answered one^ which was 
 not included. These would have led him into deeper 
 water had he sought it. I will now read him sixty-one 
 sentences, and see if he will answer them. 
 
 As he will not own that the three persons are three 
 Gods, yet fails to define what they are, I propose now, 
 to give him a number of sentences, defining what the 
 three are, according to his theory. 
 
 1. He believes in three persons, all of whom are Je- 
 
 hovah. 
 
 2. Three persons, all of whom are God. 
 
 3. Three persons, all first and last. 
 
 4. Three persons, all Alpha and Omega. 
 
 5. Three persons, all king of Israel. 
 
 6. Three persons to pray to. 
 
 7. Three persons to honor equally. 
 
 8. Three persons to worship. 
 
 9. Three persons to love equally. 
 
 10. Three persons to obey equally. 
 
 11. Three persons, all supreme. 
 
 12. Three persons, all infinite, 
 
 13. Three persons, all self-existent. 
 
 14. Three persons to wear the crown in heaven. 
 
 15. Three persons to sit on the throne in heaven. 
 
 16. Three persons to hold the scepter in heaven. 
 
84 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 17. Three persons, all equal in power. 
 
 18. Three persons, all equal in glory. 
 
 19. Three persons equal in substance. 
 
 20. Three persons equal in eternity. 
 
 21. Three persons, each with a man added, or difiering. 
 
 22. Three persons to be atoned. 
 
 23. Three persons to be reconciled. 
 
 24. Three persons to look to for pardon. 
 
 25. Three persons whose laws are broken. 
 
 26. Three persons sending each other. 
 
 27. Three persons praying to each other. 
 
 28. Three persons obeying each other. 
 
 29. Three persons appeasing each other. 
 
 30. Three persons smiting each other. 
 
 31. Three persons giving the kingdom to each other. 
 
 32. Three persons equal, but one inferior to another. 
 
 33. Three persons equal, but one pra^-ing to another. 
 31. Three persons equal, but one exalting the other. 
 
 35. Three persons equal, but one giving life to another. 
 
 36. Three persons equal, but one giving power to an- 
 
 other. 
 
 37. Three persons with a man mediator. 
 
 38. Three persons with a human Saviour. 
 
 39. Three persons with a human sacrifice. 
 
 40. Three persons with a human body and soul. 
 
 41. Three persons creating the universe. 
 
 42. Three persons giving the law. 
 
 43. Three persons the God of Abraham. 
 
 44. Three persons giving their Son for the salvation of 
 
 men. 
 
 45. Three omnipotent persons. 
 
 46. Three omnipresent persons. 
 
 47. Three omniscient persons. 
 
 48. Tliree persons, all the only wise God. 
 
 49. Three persons, all the mighty God. 
 
 50. Three persons, all the most high God. 
 
 51. Three persons, all the eternal God. 
 
 52. Three persons, each the everlasting Father. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 85 
 
 63. Three persons, each the first great Cause. 
 
 54. Three persons, all husband to the church. 
 
 55. Three persons, all equally God. 
 
 56. Three persons all equal; so that if the Son has a 
 
 man added, each to be equal, must have a man 
 added. 
 
 57. So, as the Son is God, and a man more ; 
 
 58. The Father must be God, and a man more ; 
 
 59. And the Holy Ghost must be God, and a man more. 
 
 60. Three persons all God, and a man more. 
 
 And in conclusion, I will say, lliat if all these make 
 one God and no more, then farewell to all mathematical 
 rules for evermore. 
 
 In order to make the Bible harmonize with their theory, 
 they are forced to give such an interpretation to the texts 
 referred to in the following list, as to make them teach 
 such absurdities as that in 
 
 John xiv,'28, Greater and less imply perfect equality. 
 
 John xvii, 8, The sender and sent, are all one 
 being. 
 
 John iii, 16, The giver and gift are just the same 
 thing. With and without body, are all the same. 
 
 Mark xiii, 32, Omniscience knows not, when is the end 
 of the world. 
 
 John V, 19, Omnipotence can of its own self do no- 
 thing. 
 
 John xi, 15, Omnipresence was glad that it was not 
 there. 
 
 Luke vi, 12, The supreme God abode all night in 
 prayer. 
 
 Luke xxiv, 29, The invisible God was often seen and 
 handled. 
 
 John XX, 19, The self-existent God has a Father and a 
 God. 
 
 John V, 26, The author of all good receives his life 
 fi'om another. 
 
 John viii, 50, The most high God seeks not liis own 
 glory. 
 
86 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 John vi, 38, The only wise God came not to do his 
 own will. 
 
 Gal. iii, 20, One and three are just the same thing. 
 
 Matt, iii, 17, Father and Son are just the same being. 
 
 Matt, xxvii, 46, On the cross, Jesus cried to himself. . 
 
 John xvii, 3, In the garden, he prayed to himself. 
 
 1 John ii, 1, As our mediator he pleads with himself. 
 
 Luke xxii, 69, In heaven he sits down at the right 
 hand of himself. 
 
 Eev. V, 7, He took the book out of the right hand of 
 himself. 
 
 Acts xvii, 31, He is appointed to judge the quick and 
 dead by himself. 
 
 Shall we believe all these contradictions ? What then 
 is the use of preaching against the Roman Catholic ab- 
 surdities, so long as we can believe such as these ? But 
 let us look at this system again. 
 
 If Jesus be God, and there be no other God, then what 
 is true of God, is true of Jesus. Let us try this, by read- 
 ing Jesus instead of God^ in a few texts ; and you will 
 plainly see that Jesus is not God. 
 
 1. Jesus so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son, John iii, 16. Did he ? 
 
 2. Jesus sent forth his Son made of a woman. Did 
 he? 
 
 3. There is one Jehovah, Jesus, and one mediator be- 
 tween Jesus and men, Gal. iii, 20. Is there? 
 
 4. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of 
 Jesus. Did he ? 
 
 5. No man hath seen Jesus at any time. Have they 
 not? 
 
 6. Jesus over all blessed for ever. Is he over the Father 
 
 and the Holy Ghost ? 
 
 7. Jesus created all things by his Son. Did he ? 
 
 8. He offered himself without spot to Jesus. Did he? 
 
 9. He cried, Jesus, Jesus, why hast thou forsaken me? 
 Did he ? 
 
 10. I ascend to my Jesus and to your Jesus. Did he ? 
 
DISCirSSI02T ON THE TRINITY. 8T 
 
 11. God said, take, eat, this is my body. Did he ? 
 
 12. I want my brother to explain these dlflSculties in 
 his system. How is it that Jesus gave his Son for us ? 
 Or if he did not ; then, how is it that he is the God 
 that gave his Son^ and yet he did not give his Son \ 
 
 If Jesus be God, then what is true of God is trae of 
 Jesus ; unless Jesus be some other God ; which my bro- 
 ther will not admit. * To say that Jesus is God, is easy 
 enough, but to prove it is hard, and to explain it, yet 
 more difficult. 
 
 Now if these difficulties are explained, I have others 
 which I will present. To say that Jesus is God, and yet 
 that he does not do what God does, nor know what God 
 knows, and is not what God is, or that God is not what 
 he is, will never do. If one is begotten of another, 
 that which is begotten can not be that which begat. 
 
 So far as my brother believes the Bible, we agree ; but 
 when he believes something, which is not only not in the 
 Bible, but contradicts it ; there we difier. The doctrine 
 of the Trinity never had its origin in the Bible. God 
 never spoke the word ; Jesus never named it. The apos- 
 tles never mentioned it ; but now men call God, Trinity, 
 Holy Trinity. It is a great thing to name om- God. We 
 may name our dog, our hoi-se, or our child ; but the 
 child should not name its father ; and we should not name 
 our God. The name by which men now call God, was 
 introduced into the church in the latter part of the second 
 century; and the doctrine "received (says Mosheim) its 
 finishing touch," two hundred years after. Theodosius, 
 the tenth Christian emperor of Rome, but the first who 
 was baptized in the Trinitarian faith, was a great con- 
 queror, and on ascending the throne immediately set 
 about overturning the primitive Christian churches, and 
 establishing the Trinity. One hundred churches were 
 taken from the Christians, and given to the Trinitarians. 
 Gibbon says — " that the Arians might complain with 
 some tolerable degree of justice, that an inconsiderable 
 congi-egation of sectai'ies, in the city of Constantinople, 
 
88 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 Bhould usurp the liundred churches, which they were in- 
 sufficient to fill, while the far greater part of tlie people 
 were cruelly excluded li'om every place of religious wor- 
 ship. Theodosius was still inexorable; but as the angels 
 who had protected the Catholic cause, were only visible 
 to the eyes of faith, he prudently reinforced those heav- 
 enly legions with the more effectual aid of temporal and 
 carnal weapons ; and the temple of 'St. Sophia was occu- 
 pied by a large body of the imperial guards." — Gib. iii, 7 6. 
 
 The Trinitarians once established, a council was held 
 in Constantinople, which gave the finishing touch to the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. Their own bishop compares 
 the council to wa^ps, magpies, cranes, and geese. These 
 were the men who gave us the Trinity. Oh, my breth- 
 ren, abandon it as one of the relics of poper}^ There is 
 enough in the Bible ; had there not been, God would have 
 given us more. God has not left us to manufacture sys 
 terns of self-righteousness, 
 
 Mr. Flood's Sixth reply: 
 
 I shall, as briefly as I can, respond to my brother's re- 
 marks in his last speech. I must do myself the justice, 
 not to follow him in all those numerous repetitions, of 
 what he thinks are objections to our doctrine of the qual- 
 ity of the persons in the Godhead. The brother set out, 
 by complaining that I had used the term copyist. I sug- 
 gested, that if his course continued to be such as it had 
 been, he might be open to the charge ; then the brother 
 becomes courageous : I am glad to see it. I can throw 
 away my portfolio, he exclaims, and meet any man on 
 this subject, with the Bible only. Well, I have not ex- 
 pressed the slightest want of confidence in his ability ; 
 but he complains that I make fun of him, by praising 
 him, and comparing him with Liitlier. Xow,- 1 hope my 
 brother will become better acquainted with me, and know 
 that I am not a fun maker ; I merely alluded to the fact, 
 that our friends had furnished me with a respectable op- 
 ponent ; and that he, like Luther, would manfully defend 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 89 
 
 his views ; I would not be understood as doing it in the 
 light of fun making, and hope he will not use the term 
 any more. 
 
 "The Son, who is the word of the Father, the very and 
 eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's 
 nature, in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that 
 two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Grod- 
 head, and manhood, were joined together in one person, 
 never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ, very God, 
 and very man, who truly sufiered, was crucified, dead, 
 and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a 
 sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual 
 sins of men." 
 
 Now this briefly explains the views of those who adopt 
 the Methodist Protestant faith. He says, he has no creed 
 but the Bible. I propose to define the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist 
 Frotestant church ; especially with regard to the equality 
 of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, and 
 eternity. Now, I do hope this audience will not allow 
 their attention to be diverted from the question at issue. 
 The brother tells you, that this doctrine, with regard to 
 the equality of the Father and the Son, is contrary to the 
 teaching of the word of God ; I stand here to demonstrate 
 the truth of that doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity, 
 with regard to the equality of Jesus Christ with the 
 Father, is in strict accordance with the teaching of the 
 word of God. 
 
 Revelations i, 18 : "/ am he that liveth and was dead ; 
 and behold, I am alive for evermore." Now we submit 
 upon this text the following proposition: He alludes 
 to the divine nature, as though he had said, I am the 
 living one. In the second part, he alludes to the human 
 nature of Jesus Christ, as he that w^as dead ; this alludes 
 to the human nature of Jesus Christ, which was dead ; 
 the divine nature could not die — he who never began 
 to live could never die. The third part alludes, also, to 
 
 second article of our religion. 
 
 8 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 the fact, that he is now alive; "I am alive forever- 
 more." He who is the truth itself sets his own amen to 
 it, and he requires of us that we should set our seal to it, 
 by believing. Mr. S. then charges me with saying, that 
 God had no Son until Christ was born. I have no recol- 
 lection of saying so. The angels were the sons of God, 
 they are represented as shouting for joy at the birth of 
 Christ. Again, men are declared to be the sons of God ; 
 but there is a peculiar sense in which Christ, the man, 
 is the Son of God, which is not applicable to other 
 created intelligences ; he is the only begotten of the 
 Father, full of grace and truth ; hence Christ is the only 
 begotten Son of God. It is thus I understand it, what- 
 ever may be the views of those who believe in the eter- 
 nal Sonship of Christ, that the miraculous conception 
 and incarnation of the Word, or Logos, by which the 
 humanity and divinity became united, never to be per- 
 manently separated ; and, hence, in this allusion he is 
 spoken of as the only begotten Son of God. Again, he 
 says, we do not believe in the equality of the Father with 
 the Son, and assumes that a higher estimate is set upon 
 the character of Jesus Christ by Ms Society. Did you 
 notice that distinction : " The Christian places a higher 
 estimate," &c. 
 
 There seems to be something of an insinuation that 
 those of other societies are not Christians — it seems to 
 indicate something of this kind. I will not be unchari- 
 table, however, in presuming to know what may be the 
 personal views of my brother upon this point. 
 
 TVe maintain that Jesus is equal with the Father ; this 
 is the very position which I am here to prove, and which 
 he is here to disprove, with regard to the equality of 
 Jesus with the Father, in substance, power, glory, and 
 eternity. John i, 1, "In the beginning was the Word, 
 and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
 Now, I assume that the Word, or Logos, which in the 
 beginning was with God, " was God," and that Jesus is 
 equal in substance, power, glory, and eternity, with the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Father, for he is God. I design to invite yonr attention 
 to Mr. Henry's note on this passage. 
 
 John i, 5, 1 to 3. The other Evangelists leave us to 
 collect the divine dignity of Christ from his miracles and 
 doctrine, and from the various declarations and displays 
 of his glory, and perfections which they record ; but John 
 opens his Gospel with an express avowal and statement 
 of this fundamental truth. He declares that, 'In the 
 beginning was the Word.' Before the Word had a begin- 
 ning, the Word existed. Xothing could precede time, 
 but an immeasurable, incomprehensible eternity. Time 
 began, when the creation was called forth into existence 
 by the Word himself, and in this beginning ' the Word 
 was,' that is, from all eternity. Critics have shown that 
 there is an important diflerence between 'i'/i the begin- 
 ning,' and ^frora the beginning ;' yet, the context moro 
 generally fixes the meaning. ' The devil was a mur- 
 derer,' or manslayer ' from the beginning ;' but this he 
 could not be, ere man existed. Some imagined that the 
 Evangelist refen-ed to the speculations of Plato and his 
 disciples, in the term the Word, or the Logos, which 
 that philosopher used ; but it is not likely that he would 
 at all countenance such reveries, which seem originally 
 to have been borrowed from Eevelation, though they 
 were at length so distorted and darkened, as to be little 
 better than atheism. The Jews were constantly taught, 
 in their synagogues, that ' the Word of God ' was the 
 same as God, and that by the Word all things were 
 made ; which, undoubtedly, was the cause why St. John 
 delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as speaking 
 unto them, who at the first apprehension understood him. 
 Only that which they knew not was, that this Word was 
 made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus 
 Christ.' Bp. Pearson. The same learned divine shows, 
 that this way of speaking was in use before Platonism 
 was at all introduced among the Jews : and Jerome, in 
 his note on Ex. i, Stt, says, that the Septuagint translates 
 the words rendered in our version, 'The voice of the 
 
92 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Almighty,' the voice of the Logos^ or second person in the 
 sacred Trinity. The clause, however, is at present want- 
 ing in some copies of the Septuagint ; and in others, the 
 words tH %oyH do not appear to be a translation of the 
 original word Shaddai^ but of that rendered speech, 
 'As the voice of a mighty one : when they went, there 
 was the voice of speech, like the voice of an host.' The 
 word may, probably, be taken in its ordinary significa- 
 tion ; thougli w^e may certainly conclude, that this was 
 the appearance of the Second Person in the sacred Trin- 
 ity; both because he appears under the resemblance of a 
 man, and what hath been said upon this subject from 
 Is. vi, 1. 
 
 " But the apostle spoke as he was moved by the Holy 
 Spirit, and could refer to no higher authority than his 
 own: he expressly states the doctrine m the way of a 
 divine testimony^ and we should endeavor to ascertain 
 his meaning, according to the most simple and obvious 
 interpretation of his words, and explain occasional inti- 
 mations on the same mysterious subject hy them^ and 
 not them by others. The title of 'the Word' is peculiar 
 to this Evangelist, at least with but few exceptions ; it 
 may signify reason^ and is nearly equivalent to loisdom^ 
 as speaking by Solomon. Probably the title is given to 
 Christ, because by him the perfections, will, and secret 
 counsels of God are made known to man, especially, his 
 hidden and deep thoughts of wisdom, and love in our 
 redemption, even as a man communicates his secret pur- 
 poses and counsels to others by his v^orfZ, and by him 
 exclusively, for all prophets shine by his light, and 
 report his testimony. It follows ' The Wokd was w^ith 
 God,' as the apostle had not mentioned Christ as the Son 
 of God, so he did not say the Father, but God. The 
 Word existed and was with God, when no creature was 
 produced. 
 
 " 'And the Word was God.' Christianity was doubt- 
 less intended to deliver the world from idolatry, that 
 principal work of the devil; it would, therefore, have 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 93 
 
 been the most palpable absurdit}^ to suppose that one of 
 its divinely inspired teachers should use expressions at 
 the openinor of his gospel, as were exactly suited to draw 
 the whole Christian church into a new species of idolatry, 
 and which could scarcely fail to have that effect. Yet 
 this must be the consequence of supposing the person of 
 whom he here spoke to have been a mere creation, how- 
 ever highly exalted. For though the article is not pre- 
 fixed to the original word translated God, yet that term 
 is so frequently used, and even by this Evangelist, without 
 the article, for God the Father, that scarcely the shadow 
 of an objection can be drawn from that circumstance. 
 And what can we understand by this testimony, 'the 
 Word was God,' but that he was possessed of the same 
 divine nature and perfections with the Father — parti- 
 cipated the same gloiy and felicity, and was in every 
 respect equally entitled to the adoration of all rational 
 creatures, that should ever exist as that God, with whom he 
 was, and the only objection to this inference seems to be 
 that it is incomprehensible ; but it should carefully be 
 noted, that they, who will not admit of it on this account, 
 and for other reasons, are driven into hypothesis, the 
 absm-dity of which, at least, is perfectly incomprehensi- 
 ble. Every succeeding generation of opponents, hitherto, 
 have been induced to give up the system of their prede- 
 cessors as indefensible, or at least, as less specious than 
 more modern discoveries or refinements, and many from 
 age to age contend each for his own scheme of getting 
 over the difiiculties here thrown in the way. Yet their 
 utmost improvements on this subject, scarcely need any 
 other answer than to compare them with this divine 
 testimony, to which they must be in everlasting opposi- 
 tion. The inspired writer, however, was equally careful 
 to establish the personal distinction as the eternal God- 
 head of the Word, and, therefore, he adds again, ' The 
 same was in the beginning with God.' Having thus 
 stated the deity and distinct personality of the Word, he 
 proceeds to ascribe all the work of creation to Him, as 
 
94 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 working in perfect union of will and purpose with the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 In this he is so explicit as to use a repetition which, at 
 first sight, may appear needless, ' all things were made 
 by him ; ' but the word all is sometimes used where 
 absolute universality is not meant, therefore he adds, 
 that, ' without him was not anything made that was 
 made,' or, not so mucli as one single being for so the 
 original words imply. In what language can a divine 
 power and operation of the great Creator be more em- 
 phatically described, or what could have been said, better 
 suited to lead every one to look up to, and adore ' the 
 Word,' as his Omnipotent Maker and Sovereign Lord. 
 To suppose him to be a mere creature, is to suppose 
 infinite power and perfection communicable to a creature, 
 and a whole universe standing in the same relation to a 
 creature, as they do to the infinite and eternal God. 
 And to assert that ' the Word ' was only an instrument 
 or subordinate agent in creation, beside the absurdity of 
 it, expressly contradicts the Scripture, which says that 
 ' Jehovah stretcheth forth the heavens alone and spread- 
 eth abroad the earth by himself, and that he will not give 
 his glory to another.' Indeed, it is self-evident that ' he 
 who built all things is God, in the strictest and fullest 
 meaning of the word ; yet this doctrine is not grounded 
 on any single expression, but on a combination of very 
 many, and it will therefore appear more incontrovertible 
 as we proceed.' " — Scott's note, on John i. 
 
 Here you perceive what is the position we have been 
 laboring to maintain. The essential equality of the Son 
 with the Father and Word, or Logos, in substance, power, 
 glory and eternity ; and how it is, that my brother can 
 repeat so frequently, as he has thought proper to do, that 
 he holds the Son of God in higher esteem than his 
 opponent, I cannot possibly conceive. I hold that the 
 Word, or Logos, can have no superior power in the whole 
 universe, and that there can be no glory, equal to the 
 glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy (Jhost, dwelling 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 96 
 
 bodily in Jesiis Christ. He then proceeds with this 
 protracted, syllogistic statement, or proposition, putting 
 words into our mouth, and then uttering things that he 
 conceives are necessary absurdities, consequent upon the 
 position that he assumes we occupy. He says that three 
 persons hold the scepter; that three persons wear the 
 crown ; that three persons do this, and three pei*sons do 
 that ; we say, but one. I will inform my good brother, 
 that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, perform functions 
 that are proper to them, as of persons in the Godhead, 
 in the great work of human redemption. Hence the use 
 of this phrase, however profitable it may be to my oppo- 
 nent, to misrepresent our views, I shall pass them by, as 
 by no means touching the essential proposition occupied 
 by the believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, especially 
 with regard to the equality of J esus with the Father. I 
 have no inclination to pass over anything which may be 
 regarded as worthy of the argument. 
 
 He closes by inquiring, shall we believe these contradic- 
 tions ? Now it may be very convenient for my brother to 
 make a system of divinity for his opponent, and having 
 set up the standard, he says (this is their faith.) and then 
 he has the exquisite pleasure of demolishing the creature 
 of his own imagination. This may be his coui-se, but I 
 do not think it would be profitable for me, or my doctrine, 
 and therefore I will not follow in his track. He refers to 
 Christ standing at the right hand of God, when Stephen 
 prayed in the hour of his agony, " Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit." In connection with that prayer, he declares 
 he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God ; and if 
 Jesus is God, then he says of Christ he saw Jesus stand 
 at the right hand of Jesus. Xow Jesus Christ, in his 
 character as a mediator, is represented as occupying this 
 position — the i-ight hand of God. He is in the immedi- 
 ate favor of God. He is in intimate communion with 
 the divinity, and is in the presence of, or at the right 
 hand of God ; that is a position of divine favor, and in 
 this position Stephen saw him, and prayed, ''Lord Jesus, 
 
96 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 receive my spirit." Did be pray to an angel, having a 
 limited power ? Ko ! it was at a period when he 
 required the ahnighty arm to be extended to him. Did 
 he appeal to any departed saint ? 'No ! none of these 
 relics of Popery were appealed to. Jesus Christ, in his 
 character as God and man, having the sympathies of 
 human nature ; he knew that Christ loved him in his 
 affliction, that in the power of Jehovah he was willing 
 to trust himself in his hands, if life ceased, and his body 
 failed, in full confidence he committed himself to the 
 arms of his Saviour, and with more than lightning speed, 
 his spirit was borne to the compassionate bosom of Christ. 
 
 Mk Summerbell's Seventh address : 
 
 My friends, I wish you to remember, that their creed 
 teaches that God died ; and their hymn says, 
 
 " When God, the mighty Maker, died. 
 For man, the creature's, sin." 
 
 But my brother says, that this is merely poetical license, 
 and that no Methodist clergyman believes that divinity 
 died. Very well ! we will see. I now hold in my hand 
 a Methodist book of sermons, by Rev. T. H. Stockton, 
 one of the most eminent orator's in the Methodist Pro- 
 testant church. Let us see what he says. 
 
 Bible Alliance, p. 120, " In the beginning was the 
 Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God — all things were made by him, and without him 
 was not anything made that was made.' 'How was that V 
 ' Methinks I hear the communings of God and the 
 Word — after the sin of man ; and thus the Word ad- 
 dresses God ;' ' Was it not by me that thou didst create 
 all things, that thou didst make man ? Love may suffer 
 as well as work ; let love resort to suflering by me ; let 
 man live.' And thus God replies to the Word ; ' How 
 canst thou bear to become obedient unto death ? how 
 canst thou bear even to die on the cross i ' " P. 122. 
 
 This, remember, is the pre-existent Logos, or Word — 
 the Son before the incarnation. This is my brother's 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 97 
 
 God ; the second person, to whom God says, " How canst 
 thou bear to die on the cross ? " 
 
 It is not necessary to bring up all the clergymen in the 
 world. My brother said, tliat no Methodist clergyman 
 believed that God died. Mr. Stockton is of his own 
 church, and is good authority ; good authority for me 
 against my brother. And he is one of their most emi- 
 nent ministers. As an orator, I know not his superior. 
 
 I will now notice John i, 1. I could not see the force 
 of my brother's argument against the Christians, on this 
 text. It says nothing about the Trinity. Isaiah ix, 6, 
 says, " that Jesus shall be called the mighty God." 
 Philip, ii, 9, says, that he " should receive a name which 
 is above every name." And Heb. i, 4, says, that " he 
 by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the 
 angels ; " so that he gets the name God, by inheritance 
 from his Father, (and it denotes his nature,) just as every 
 son receives' his father's name. God gives it to him, say- 
 ing, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a scepter 
 of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom; for thou 
 hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore 
 God, even thy God^ hath anointed thee with the oil of 
 gladness above thy fellows." Such language as this 
 could never be addressed to the supreme God. Gabriel, 
 interpreted, is, mighty God, and Elijah, is God Jehovah, 
 or God the Lord ; why then should not the Son be called 
 by his Father's name ? 
 
 The text reads, John i, 1, " EX ap;^^ r^v 6 xoyo?, xal 6 ^oyoj 
 ijv Ttpoj tov ©fov, xai Qsb? '/jv 6 ?.oyoj." That is, " In the be- 
 ginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, 
 and the Word was God." Was God, is without the 
 article tov (the). Logos signifies a word, as Matt, viii, 8, 
 " Speak the word (-koyov) only." The same was in the 
 beginning with God. So Paul declares that "Aaron 
 paid tithes to Melchizedec, being yet in the loins of his 
 father Abraham." John says, that his design in writ- 
 ing this Gospel, was that we might believe that "Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God." John xx, 31. I like my 
 
98 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 brother's comment by Henry ^ very well ; i. e., " Word 
 signifies voice — that is, voice of God ;" and also the ref- 
 erence to Proverbs, chap, viii, where wisdom is personi- 
 fied as being with God in the beginning, or ever the 
 earth was." This Word, or Logos, my brother says, is 
 the second person in the Trinity ; but denies that it was 
 the Son. Who then was it ? We believe that Christ is 
 truly the Son of God, and that he came out from God ; 
 and this text applied to him, proves his divine nature. 
 That the Son of God is called God, we have never denied. 
 Paul says, that " there are many that are called Gods, 
 both in heaven and in earth ; but unto us there is but 
 one God the Father." 1 Cor. viii, 5. This text, as applied 
 to Christ, also proves his pre-existence. Some under- 
 stand it as though it read, represents God^ as my brother 
 interpreted John xiv, 9. Also, as all Protestants inter- 
 pret, " This is my body ;" " The seven lean kine are 
 seven years of famine ;" " The seven stars are the angels 
 of the seven churches ;" "and the seven golden candle- 
 sticks, are the seven churches." Rev. i. 10. 
 
 Macknight, on Rom. ix, 5, thinks, " that Christ in the 
 flesh is called God over all, because God hath highly ex- 
 alted him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name." Storr and Flatt think, that " in consequence of 
 the union of the man Jesus with the Logos, the man is 
 God, (p. 420) and has divine honor, and is Lord over all." 
 1 Sam. XX, 12, " Jonathan said unto David, O Lord God 
 of Israel," &c. So that if they can make the man Jesus 
 God, and David is called God ; they need not object to 
 the Son of God being called God. 
 
 But what do they make of this text ? Professor Stew- 
 art says, " The Logos was with God ; i. e., with the 
 Father." " This is capable of no tolerable interpretation, 
 without supposing that the Logos, who was with God, 
 was in some respect or other, different or diverse, from 
 the God with whom he was ; and, therefore, by no means 
 to be confounded with him." " If a man should gravely 
 assert, that the wisdom or power of Peter is with Peter, 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 99 
 
 and add, the wisdom and power of Peter are Peters ; 
 with what class of mystics would we rank him ? What 
 could be the object of John, in asserting that the Logos 
 was loith God ? I answer, to be with one, indicates con- 
 junction, familiarity, society. The only 'begotten Son is 
 said to be in the bosom of the Father, which is a phrase 
 of similar import. Christians are promised, as the 
 summit of their felicity, that they shall be with God." — 
 Stewart's " Society" proyes a plurality of beings. 
 
 "We believe that the Son is the brightness of the 
 Father's glory, and the express image of his person ; as 
 the image of the bright sun is seen truly reflected in the 
 glassy lake, so in Jesus all the Fathers glories shine. It 
 seems to me, that the great difiiculty upon this text, is 
 among Trinitarians. They cling to it because of the sound 
 of words. Suppose it were admitted that Jesus were truly 
 a second supreme or subordinate God, (which it can never 
 be) even then it would not suit them, for they reject the 
 Nicene creed, " God of God," on this very ground. They 
 know not what to make of Jesus. The creeds teach that 
 he was a Son begotten before all worlds ; but to secure 
 the supreme Deity they reject the Son. But the Apostle 
 says, that "there is none other God but one, the Father," 
 1 Cor. viii, 4r-6 ; and we like Paul's creed best. Let me 
 read a little more from their own authors. Clarke ap- 
 proves of the docti'ine of Philo the Jew, on the Logos, 
 and gives a compendium of his views of Christ, of which 
 I agree in the following : 
 
 "The Logos is the Son of God ; the first begotten of 
 God ; the image of God ; superior to angels ; superior 
 to all the world ; by whom the world was created ; the 
 great substitute of God ; the light of the world ; who 
 resides in God ; esteemed the same as God. The Logos 
 is eternal ; he beholds all things ; unites and supports all 
 things ; nearest to God without any separation ; free 
 from all taint of sin ; presides over the imperfect and 
 weak. The Logos is a fountain of wisdom ; a messenger 
 sent from God ; the advocate for mortal man ; he ordered 
 
100 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 and disposed all things; the shepherd of God's flock; 
 the physician who heals all evil ; the seal of God ; sure 
 refuge of those who seek hira," &c. To this the Chris- 
 tians do not object, though not worded in Scripture 
 language ; but* they cannot admit with Clarke, that the 
 Logos is a " second divinity." Thus Clarke proves too 
 much for my brother. Clarke on John i, 1. Let us now 
 hear from another orthodox work of the highest Lutheran 
 authority : Storr & Flatt's Biblical Theology, by S. S. 
 Schmucker, D. D., second edition, Andover, 1836, 
 of Gettysburgh, Pa. " Another reason why the name 
 ' Son of God ' is given to the man Jesus, is because, 
 according to the will of the Father, he is partaker of his 
 divine perfections." " The perfection and dignity which 
 are conferred on the man Jesus, by this union, is seen 
 most clearly in his present state of exaltation, for it would 
 have been impossible that this man could have been 
 raised to so great an elevation, that the divine govern- 
 ment and divine honor could have been conferred on him, 
 and he have been made Lord over all ; nor could ' all 
 power in heaven and on earth' have been transferred to 
 him," cfec, pp. 418-422. 
 
 It seems very easy to make Gods, according to this 
 theory. Every person can see at a glance that it is not 
 the Supreme God who is here deified, but a mmi is taken 
 into union with the divine Son and called God, Lord, 
 etc. They should be careful how they criticise the doc- 
 trine of the Christians. As the rays of light striking 
 upon yonder wall we call the sun, without meaning that 
 they are literally the luminary from which they emanate, 
 so the divine penman calls the brightness of God's glory, 
 (Heb. i, 2,) God, without meaning that it is literally the 
 God whose brightness it is. I will call your attention to 
 the descriptions which are given of men, and wish you 
 to notice especially, that were such language found in 
 the Bible, connected with the name of Jesus, they would 
 surely take it to prove his Deity. I will first read from 
 Mr. Stockton, one of my brother's own ministers. He 
 says — and the language is glowing and beautiful : — 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 101 
 
 T. H. Stockton, p. 49. " There is not a doubt, or the 
 shadow of a doubt, to obstruct my steps, or darken my 
 path. Like an exile, on returning, I hail my home. Like 
 a mariner, I have quit the stormy sea, for the quiet haven ; 
 and have only to unlade and distribute the gathered treas- 
 ures of other and richer lands. Like a warrior, I have 
 served my term, and am released from the battle ; at 
 liberty to pitch my tent among the husbandmen, to 
 beat my sword into a plowshare and my spear into a 
 pruning-hook. Or like an anointed high-priest, in his 
 garments of beauty and glory, I am once more permitted, 
 as in due course, to retire from the tumult of the world to 
 the serenity of the temple : from the fields of labor, from 
 the marts of commerce, and from the palaces of power, 
 to the incense of the altar, to the silence of the shrine, to 
 the sympathy of the cherubim, to the splendor of the 
 Shekinah, and to the mercy of the Oracle ; not however 
 for my own advantage alone, but that I may come forth 
 again with my brow blazing with the name of Jehovah^ 
 and my breast blazing with the names of the tribes of his 
 people ; with my eyes sparkling, my cheeks flushed, my 
 breath fragrant, my voice musical, and my lifted hands 
 all trembling with the rapture of his once blood-bought, 
 but now free and common blesssing. * * * * I 
 ask audience, I claim audience, I challenge in particular 
 the blind that they may see, the deaf that they may hear, 
 and the dumb that they may speak, and the lame that 
 they may leap, and the sick that they may revive, and 
 the leprous that they may be clean, and the paralytic 
 that they may be composed, and the maimed that they 
 may be whole, and the lunatic that they may be calm, 
 and the demoniac that they may be dispossessed, and the 
 imprisoned that they may be free, and the dead that they 
 may rise, and all to give audience. * * * * ^^ay, 
 more, I claim the audience of all the inhabitants of all 
 the worlds, of all the systems in all the imiverse. I 
 claim the audience of all with no apology to make to 
 any ; the audience of all sages and saints, of all angels 
 
102 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 and archangels ; of all cherubim and seraphim, of all 
 thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, 
 of all the morning stains that fill immensity with the light 
 of joy, and of all the sons of God that till eternity with 
 the music of praise ; but with no apology for any sage 
 or saint, for any angel or archangel, for any cherub or 
 seraph, for any throne or dominion, or principality or 
 power, for any morning star in all immensity, or any son 
 of God. (I speak it reverently — Summerbell.) or any son 
 of God to all eternity^ rather I honor them by this claim, 
 and they will prize the compliment as an augmentation 
 of their felicity." — Bible Alliance, pp. 49-52. 
 
 Xow had Christ used this language, you all know that 
 my brother would have quoted it to have proved him the 
 Supreme God. Would they not have said of such words 
 as "my brow blazing with the name of Jehovah," '* he 
 is an impostor if he was not God \ " Yet Mr. Stockton 
 is no impostor, but a minister of Jesus Christ, who 
 framed this language, no doubt, during a high state of 
 intellectual excitement. 
 
 To prove that the perfections of God are ascribed to 
 Christ, a few lean texts, not embracing half so much as 
 is said of men, are depended upon. But as though our 
 blessed Saviour would ever guard us against such false 
 theories, he himself has given replies to every such argu- 
 ment. 
 
 1. If they say that he is called God, he says that "The 
 Father is the only true God." — John xvii, 3. 
 
 2. If they say that he is omniscient, he says, " Of that 
 day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the 
 Father only."— Mark xiii, 32 ; Mat. xxiv, 36. 
 
 3. If they say that he did all his works by his own 
 power, he says, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
 the works." — John xiv, 10. 
 
 4. If they say that he performed all his miracles in his 
 own name, he says, " The works that I do in my Father's 
 name." — John x, 25. 
 
 5. Kthey say that none but God could do such works, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 103 
 
 he says, " Greater works than these shall ye do." — John 
 xiv, 12. 
 
 6. If they say that he is omnipresent, he says, " I am 
 glad, for your sakes, that I was not there." — John xi, 15. 
 
 7. If they say that he is omnipotent, he says, "The 
 Son can do nothing of himself." — John v, 20. 
 
 8. If they say that he is equal with the Father, he says, 
 " My Father is*^ greater than I." — John x, 29 and xiv, 28. 
 
 So carefully on every side does Jesus guard the unity 
 of God, that no person could say that he came to seek his 
 own glory. 
 
 As they claim that such divine titles and honors prove 
 Jesus to be God, let us examine whether these titles are 
 not ascribed to men and angels. And if so, according 
 to my brother's theory, they also must be Gods. 
 
 1. Men have the name God. Elijah signifies God the 
 Lord, or Jehovah. Ex. vii. Moses is called God. — xxii, 
 28. It is written, thou shalt not revile the gods. Ps. 
 Ixxxii, 6. I said ye are gods. John x, 30. He calls them 
 gods to whom the Word of God came. 
 
 2. Angels are called God. Gabriel, interpreted, is 
 Mighty God. And Michael, is like God. Ps. Ixxxii, 1. 
 The Lord sitteth in the congregation of the mighty ; he 
 judgeth among the gods. 1 Cor. viii, 5. For though 
 there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in 
 earth, as there be lords many and gods many. 
 
 3. Men have prophets. Ex. vii, 1. See I have made 
 thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron, thy brother, shall be 
 thy prophet. 
 
 4. Men are worshiped with oblations. Dan. ii, 46. 
 Nebuchadnezzer fell on his face and worshiped Daniel, 
 and commanded that they should offer an oblation and 
 sweet odors uuto him. 
 
 5. Men are worshiped in connection with God. 1 
 Chron. xxix, 20. All the congregation worshiped the 
 Lord and the King, (David.) 
 
 6. Men know all things. Ye have received an unction 
 from the Holy One, and know all things. 
 
104 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 7. Men are to judge the world and angels. 1 Cor. 
 vi, 2, 3. The saints shall judge the world. We shall 
 judge angels. 
 
 8. God's gloiy is given to men. John xvii, 22. The 
 glory which thou gavest me, I have given them. 
 
 9. Saints are one with God and the Sod. John xvii, 
 21. As thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they 
 also may be one in us. 
 
 10. Saints pardon sin. John xx, 28. Whosesoever 
 sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them. 
 
 11. So also, Jesus said, greater works than these (his 
 works) shall ye do. 
 
 Now before my brother again objects to these high 
 honors being ascribed to the Son of God, let hira either 
 admit all these into his Tfinity, or explain how the same 
 names which are applied to them as creatures, should 
 prove Jesus the supreme God, and be too high for him 
 as the Son of God! My brother quotes "I and my 
 Father are one." But does this prove equality ? Are 
 not a man and his wife one ? Does not Jesus pray, John 
 xvii, that we may all be one, even as he and his Father 
 are one ? Were not the builders of the Babel tower one ? 
 
 How careful should we be not to misinterpret the 
 sacred Scriptures ? He takes one text here, and another 
 yonder; part of a text from this chapter, and part from 
 that ; here one about power, and there one about know- 
 ledge, and brings them all together, just as a mechanic 
 brings together timbers to build a house ; and frames 
 them tos^ether, and says : " Xow is not this God ?" " Is 
 not this "God ?" " Have I not done it ?" No ! no ! ! you 
 have not done it ! You cannot manufacture Gods. God 
 is Eternal. And tlie Bible believer realizes his exist- 
 ence as the eternal One. the great immutable first Cause. 
 Let my brother explain the passages which I have quoted 
 ascribing glory to men, and by the same process he can 
 explain all that he has brought to prove that more than 
 One is God. And my brother had better explain them, 
 for if the Son be God, he is not the God of the creed, for 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TEINITT. 
 
 105 
 
 that God is without body or parts, and I am sure that 
 my brother docs not wish to lie under the imputation 
 of holding two Gods. Concerning giving God a body, 
 however, my brother has concluded that the creed is 
 false, for the creed says that God has no body ; but my 
 brother says that God has got a body, }'et his brother 
 clergyman, Kev. Mr. Mattison, says that to give God a 
 body, is no better than atheism. So that, my brother, 
 according to an eminent Methodist minister, now in New 
 York City, you are no better than an atheist. But I do 
 not admit this ; I must defend you. These autliors are 
 hasty and unguarded in their language. My brother 
 admits that the Discipline is wrong, in making the Son 
 eternal, since he agrees with Clarke, who says : If Christ 
 be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then he can 
 not be eternal." Clarke, Luke i, 25. They believe the 
 Son to be simply a man, and yet the Son is the second 
 IXirson in the Trinity. In proof of the human origin of 
 the Trinit}^, it is to be remembered that the word Trinity 
 was first introduced, in the latter end of the second 
 century, and : 
 
 That none of the early fathers were Trinitarians : 
 
 That my brother has not been able to find the word 
 Trinity in any of their writings : 
 
 Tljat the first two church historians, Hegisippus and 
 Eusebius, were neither of them Trinitarians : 
 
 That Theodosius, the tenth, professedly Christian em- 
 peror of Rome, was the first baptized in the faith of the 
 Trinity : 
 
 That when he undertook the establishment of that 
 doctrine, by the power of the sword, he excluded the 
 congregations from over one hundred churches in Con- 
 stantinople alone : 
 
 That at that time all the Christian nations rejected it : 
 
 That notwithstanding all the Christian kings of the 
 first five centuries, Clovis of France is called the eldest 
 son of the Church, because the first Trinitarian king : 
 
 That of forty -five councils held in tlie fourth century. 
 
106 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 embracing the largest councils held in the early ages, 
 only thirteen of the smaller held the Trinity, while thirty- 
 two opposed it : 
 
 That the conversion of the nations to the Trinity, is 
 called giving their power to the beast — Rev. xvii, 13 : 
 
 That at one time in the fourth century, Athanasius 
 was the only Trinitarian bishop of any note in the world : 
 
 And that although millions of people have been put 
 to death to establish it, it is still falling. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Seventh reply: 
 
 My brother quotes Dr. Stewart on John i, 3, who sup- 
 poses that God nmst have been different from the Word. 
 How ? Different in substance ? Different in power ? 
 Different in glory or eternity ? This seems to be a very 
 ambiguous phrase, and if it is not as an exposition, I 
 am perfectly willing that he should enjoy its entire 
 benefit. He quotes Mr. Stockton, page 122. When that 
 eminent divine learns how his name has been brought 
 into this discussion, he will consider that no great com- 
 pliment has been paid him in the manner in which his 
 writings have been used. I will read a passage from 
 Mr. Stockton, commencing on the same page. 
 
 " Now thou art glorified with the glory which thou 
 hadst with me before the world was. Now thou art in 
 the form of God, and thinkest it not robbery to be equal 
 with God. Now thou art acknowledged by me and by 
 the universe, to be the very brightness of my glory, and 
 the express image of my person. How, then, canst thou 
 bear, even though only in appearance, to lose my love ? 
 How canst thou bear to obscure thy glory, and make thy- 
 self of no reputation ? How canst thou bear to take upon 
 thee the form of a servant ? Nay, far worse than this-, how 
 canst thou bear- to exchange my image for the fashion of 
 man, of sinful man, debased to the likeness of the devil ?" 
 You see it is in connection with his humanity, that he is 
 contemplating this; not in his divinity — not as he existed 
 prior to his manifestation. "How canst thou, in thy 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 107 
 
 divine nature, shall God die ?" Ko ! Dr. Stockton never 
 uttered it. I used the term Dr., because the honor was 
 conferred by the Pennsylvania College at Gettysburgli ; 
 but, like Mr. Barnes, he declined the honor — the only 
 two living divines who ever rejected the title of D. D. 
 This passage, in its connection, is sufficient for the pre- 
 sent purpose, to show he does not, in the selection, know 
 what notes he quotes, from pages 149, 150, 152, contain- 
 ing the elegant language of Mr. Stockton. He thinks 
 if I had met with this, as applied to Christ, I should 
 have applied it in proof of his divinity. Surely my 
 brother has made a grand mistake. When he ventures to 
 compare himself to a mariner, might not any traveler, 
 on his return to his native land, have dictated this sen- 
 timent, and expressed this feeling ? " Like a warrior ?" 
 now, it seems that Christians are represented in this 
 light, in the Word of God. and required to take to them- 
 selves the whole armor of God. I wonder he did not 
 charge Mr. Stockton with blasphemy, or guilty of sacri- 
 lege, in using such language. He challenges the blind, 
 the dumb, the sick, the leprous, &c. Here he alludes to 
 the glorious traits contained in the miraculous transac- 
 tions of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And the 
 brother supposes, that iiad this language been applied to 
 Christ, I should have taken it as a proof that he was God. 
 "All thrones, and dominions, morning stars," &c., of all 
 these clainls he audience, and then demands the audi- 
 ence of the Son of God, yet with no apology to any, for 
 this claim ; they would prize the compliment as an 
 augmentation to their felicity. I hail them afar by the 
 silver trumpet of Isaiah, "Hear O Heaven, and give ear 
 O earth, for the Lord had spoken." Here, then, is that 
 page — he claims the audience of those hosts — he ad- 
 dresses them by the silver trumpet ; not of Thomas H. 
 Stockton, but of Isaiah. Xow, what the brother has dis- 
 covered in all this, that could have attracted his attention, 
 except it be the sublimity of the language, I am at a 
 loss to conceive. Then, with regard to the wonders of 
 
108 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 God, as assumed bv Trinitarians, God is one, Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost: these three are one. There are 
 three persons constituting the true Godhead, dwelling in 
 the person of Jesus Christ bodily. This, my brother in- 
 timates, may be illustrated by the idea, that a man and 
 his wile are one ; even, as intimated by my brother, that 
 the builders of Babel were one. Xow, will he have it 
 understood that the builders of Babel were one, in the 
 same way that the Father and Son are one ? Had they 
 been one in that sense, in the erection of that tower, their 
 object might not have been frastrated by the confusion of 
 their language ; but they were scattered. So the union 
 that exists between Father and Son, may, at some future 
 period, be broken up ; and this, I shall show, may be the 
 case, if the union exists by a delegation of power from 
 one to the other. That there may be such a thing as a 
 derangement in the union that now exists, provided that 
 it was so, this will be made as clear as the light of day, 
 at the proper time. He then goes on to notice some pas- 
 sages on the name of God, and shows us that these 
 names are applied to man. It so stands, I admit, more 
 than once ; but not in the sense in which it is applied to 
 the supreme Jehovah ; it is applied to Moses with regard 
 to Pharaoh ; to David in an addr^s to him, which was 
 quoted. 
 
 My brother said, I might explain, if I could, how these 
 phrases were employed, in reference to inferior beings. 
 I here assume that in no instance is this language em- 
 ployed, as it would have been, had it been expressive 
 of the perfections of the supreme God ; and he will not 
 say that it is. He also says, with equal propriety, that 
 the same terms were applied to Jesus Christ, which I 
 might explain if I v:oidd. These terms are applied to 
 Jesus Christ, in the same sense that they are applied to 
 the Lord Jehovah ; and hence, this changes the face of 
 the matter very materially — it is used in the passage 
 already quoted, Hebrews i, 8 ; unto the Son he saith, 
 "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Here it is 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 109 
 
 applied to Jesus Christ in the same absolute sense that 
 it is applied to God, Isaiah ix, 6, " For unto us a child is 
 born ; unto us a Son is given, and the government shall 
 be upon his shoulders ; and his name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counselor; the Mighty God ; the Everlasting 
 Father ; the Prince of Peace." I shall have occasion to 
 found an argument upon this passage, at a subsequent 
 time ; I quote here to prove that these titles are given to 
 Jesus Christ, in the same sense in which they are applied 
 to the alrfiighty Jehovah. He says, the parents of Samp- 
 son, when they had seen an angel, allowed that they had 
 seen God ; and I could have referred him to many simi- 
 lar expressions, even ; and thus he quotes the instance 
 in which a man highly favored of God, and to whom I 
 have already alluded in this discussion, supposes that a 
 God was before him, and was about to bow down to him, 
 and worship him, even as God; but was forbidden, from 
 the very fact, that it would have been idolatry, however 
 exalted he was in character, or appearance. So if Jesus 
 Christ be not God, then would the same truth necessarily 
 follow, that if acts of devotion were paid to him, in the 
 sense in w^ich they were paid to the supreme God, those 
 acts would be idolatrous in their nature ; but whenever 
 devotions have been paid to Jesus Christ, has he ever 
 refused to receive them ? 
 
 In the same chapter quoted, Hebrews i, 6, " And again 
 ■when he bringetli in the first begotten into the world, he 
 sayeth, And let all the angels of God worship him." So 
 that Christ is worshiped by angels in heaven — they are 
 all required to do it. He was worshiped and adored upon 
 this earth, and received divine honors, expressed clearly 
 in the acts of devotion paid to him, without even charg- 
 ing upon those who did it the act of idolatry ; hence the 
 matter appears in a very difierent light when the true 
 position of this question is asserted. My brother says, 
 that men can manufacture Gods. Whom he supposes 
 anxious to manufacture Gods, I cannot conceive. I ap- 
 proach this subject with profound reverence. We might 
 
110 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 sometimes, when we see men disposed to prove great 
 things, conclude they might be going out on the business 
 of world making ; but the idea of manufacturing Gods, 
 seems to be fraught with such sentiments%f blasphemy, 
 that I cannot dwell upon it, without expressing my ab- 
 horrence of the man who could engage in such a business. 
 
 My brother hands me a printed paper of his own, on 
 which fifty distinct points of diflference are made out be- 
 tween his belief and ours, and half of which I design 
 noticing, that he may not say an answer has' not been 
 given. The forty-ninth point which he makes out, is, 
 that we hold, divisions among Christians are right. My 
 brother, not Methodism, is responsible for this. 
 
 I assert that Methodism teaches no such thing, as that 
 division, in the proper sense of the word, is right ; that 
 this is ground which I do not wish to enter upon, I 
 merely mention it, to show its want of applicability. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell responds with : The proposition re- 
 ferred to by Mr. Flood, was not read, and that it was 
 erased out on the printed paper handed to Mr. Flood. 
 
 When ye pray, say Holy Trinity." There is no such 
 injunction in the Methodist Discipline ; but I can see no 
 propriety in answering what has no connection with the 
 subject, and which really has no existence in our Disci- 
 pline. 
 
 My brother's friends will now see the reason why I am 
 compelled to treat much of his argument in the manner 
 in which I do. " We have no God but Jesus." This is 
 language which does not occur in the Book of Discipline; 
 and the brother stands responsible for placing such lan- 
 guage in the mouth of Methodists, and presenting it as 
 their arguments in this printed sheet. 
 
 To say that we have no God but Jesus, is to me, lan- 
 guage both new and novel. "He performeth all works 
 by his own power." Where the brother quotes that lan- 
 guage from, I do not know ; yet he sets it down as drawn 
 from the Methodist Discipline. Heb. i, 3, "And being 
 the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Ill 
 
 image of his person, and upholding all things by the 
 word of his power, when he had by himself purged our 
 sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high." 
 
 So if it is assumed that Christ's power is an independent 
 power, it seems to accord very well with this language. 
 " Christ is equal with God," is the thirty-sixth proposi- 
 tion posted ; to which he quotes as his belief, "My Father 
 is greater than 1." We quote, " In him dwelleth all the 
 fullness of the Godhead bodily ; all power in heaven and 
 earth is given into my hands." Again, " I Jiave power 
 to lay my life down, and I have power to take it again 
 here is the assertion of omnipotent power. 
 
 This is conceived to be all-sufficient, in review of the 
 position alluded to by my opponent, on that subject. 
 
 Now let us allude to the reference made again to the 
 doctrine, "that our God died;" which he attempted to 
 prove. I assert that no such language is to be found in 
 our belief. Whenever he reads out to me, that Mr. 
 Stockton says that God died, I will say he has a respect- 
 able author to maintain a most astounding error. 
 
 That God died, is not only an error of doctrine, it is 
 an absolute impossibility ; but now the difficulty with 
 him seems to be, that we represent Christ as both God 
 and man, showing that he died. It is the right of every 
 man, and every party, to explain their own views. We 
 hold, and have asserted time and again, that Jesus Christ 
 is both God and man — that he possesses a human and 
 divine nature, not in two separate and distinct persons, 
 but in one, and that in his humanity he died, but that in 
 his divinity he lives for ever. 
 
 Mk. Summerbell's Eighth address : 
 
 Kind friends — my brother has made out quite as well 
 as I expected. He positively denied that any Methodist 
 clergyman believed that God died, or divinity suffered. 
 So I read him, Kev. Mr, Stockton, the highest authority 
 in his own church. He cannot evade Stockton, unless 
 he denies that the pre-existent Logos, by which all things 
 
112 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 were made, is divine. But having asserted over and over 
 again, that it is God — God in contradistinction to the Son 
 or humanity ; he has to admit that God died. 
 
 I also brought him Mr. Stockton's language concern- 
 ing himself, ""My brow blazing with the name of Jeho- 
 vah," challenging the blind that they may see, and the 
 dead that they may rise ; claiming the audience of all 
 worlds, and thrones, and dominions, morning stars and 
 archangels, or any Son of God to all eternity ; and saying 
 that he had jio apology to make to any Son of God to all 
 eternity ; and I challenged my brother to find any place 
 where Jesus used such boastful language concerning 
 himself, or where the apostles used it concerning him; 
 and urged, and still urge, that if my brother were to find 
 such language concerning Jesus, he would seize upon it 
 to prove his supreme divinity, and that it would prove 
 Stockton's divinity by my brother's course of reasoning. 
 But he says, that when Mr. Stockton challenged with 
 no apology, any Son of God to all eternity, he spoke it 
 reverently. No ! Those were my wwds, I felt an awe 
 in reading them, and I said — "I speak it reverently." 
 These were not Mr. Stockton's words. But he reviews 
 and calls my attention to where Mr. Stockton speaks of 
 himself as a mariner, to show that he could not prove 
 him God ; but could not my brother apply the two-nature 
 scheme here, and say, " Why that means his human- 
 
 My brother spent some time reviewing my little paper; 
 perhaps he spent more time upon it than it was absolutely 
 worth ; but he made nothing out of it for his side. He ar- 
 gues, that in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead. 
 " So are we filled with the fullness of God." Eph. iii, 19. 
 But does this prove us equal with God ? Is this house 
 the sun because filled with its light ; or is a chest filled 
 with gold, the gold that is in it ? 
 
 He says, that 1 asserted that they had no God but Jesus. 
 I asserted that this was popular Trinitarian phraseo- 
 logy. I did not quote it as belonging to the Methodist 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 113 
 
 Protestant Church. In that class of illustrations I inclu- 
 ded all Trinitarian and Calvinistic churches. 
 
 He says, that the Methodists do not say, When ye pray 
 say " Holy Trinity ;" but the Protestant Episcopal church 
 does, and their faith is the same ; the Methodist being a 
 part of the same. They say in the Prayer-book : 
 
 1. O God the Father, maker of heaven and earth, have 
 mercy on us miserable sinners. 
 
 2. O God the Son, redeemer of mankind, have mercy 
 on us miserable sinners. 
 
 3. O God the Holy Ghost, thou sanctifier of our natures, 
 have mercy on us miserable sinners. 
 
 4. O God the Holy Trinity, three persons in one God, 
 have mercy on us miserable sinners. 
 
 They pray to the whole four of them ; and the prayers 
 in the Prayer-book are commanded to be prayed. If 
 they be not Methodist, they are quite as orthodox ! 
 
 My brother has been able to bring no text of Scripture 
 against us yet ; those which he has brought, I have 
 proved, had no such bearing, by the very best orthodox 
 authorities. He says, that if I worship my Christ, it is 
 idolatry ; but he did not prove it ! Angels and saints in 
 glory worship God and the Lamb — the Lamb that was 
 slain. God has commanded us to worship him, and I 
 will obey. But what will my brother do with the very 
 man part of his Saviour — the mediator part ? will he 
 worship it? No; that is a creature. Thus he divides 
 his Saviour; and labels the parts : this is divine, and that 
 human ; this is God, and that man ; this may be wor- 
 shiped, but not that. Now I worship a whole Saviour ; 
 he is one undivided Saviour to me. I want none of this 
 cutting and carving. I want no dissecter to pass his 
 knife through my Saviour, separating him part from part, 
 and telling me which is divine, and which human; which 
 God and which man ; which I may worship, and which I 
 may not. And 1 am sure that if we get to heaven, we will 
 find an undivided Saviour there. In the Revelation we 
 have a scene in heaven • "God sits upon a throne, (iv, 3) ; 
 10 
 
114 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 "With a book in his right hand, (v, 1) ; The angel cries 
 who is worthy to open the book ; and no man in heaven," 
 (now mark that) " no man in heaven, nor in earth, nor 
 Tinder the earth was able ;" this excludes my brother's 
 " very man but though no man was able, yet, said the 
 angel, weep not, for behold the Lion of the tribe of 
 Judah hath prevailed to open it. And I beheld, and lo, 
 in the midst of the throne, a Lamb as it had been slain," 
 (not my brother's God that did not die,) " and he came 
 and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat 
 upon the throne." Does my brother think that it was 
 the same one who sat upon the throne, that came and 
 took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon 
 the throne ? It was not the man ; because there was no 
 man able. And this Lamb the saints and angels join to 
 worship. God says, Heb. i, 6, "when he brings the first 
 begotten into the world, let all the angels of God worship 
 him," i. e., the first begotten. Will my brother worship the 
 first begotten ? Is God the first begotten ? if not, who is 
 it he worships ? Will he worship the Son ? Clarke 
 says, " Son implies inferiority ;" and he agrees with 
 Clarke. But if not, if he will not follow the practice of 
 angels, why does he quote it ? 
 
 My brother next quotes. Is. ix, 6, where he thinks the 
 Son is called the everlasting Father ; or at least, the Lo- 
 gos is so called ! The Logos is the second person ; are 
 there two Fathers ? The Athanasian creed says, " that 
 we must neither confound the persons, nor divide the 
 substance ; if we do, without doubt we shall perish ever- 
 lastingly." I do not believe it, but my brother does ; 
 yet here my brother confounds the persons, and makes the 
 second person the Father; and the child born, that, he 
 says, was very man — that was not the mighty God, but 
 the man. This is the lowest form of Socinianism. The 
 Socinian believes, that the child born was man, and that 
 the mighty God was in the man. But the prophet says, 
 that the name of the child born, should be "called the 
 .inighty God." He says that it is unnecessary to explain 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 115 
 
 the passages which I presented him ! But, if Jesus was 
 simply "very man," and only called God because God 
 was in him, how could this make him God any more 
 than Moses, who is called God ? Exod. vii, 1 ; or those 
 to whom the word of God came, who are called Gods ? 
 Exod. xxii, 28, or John x, 34, " Thou shalt not revile the 
 Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people;" or "The Lord 
 sitteth in the congregation of the mighty, he judge th 
 among the Gods." "I said ye are Gods." Ps. Ixxxii, 1- 
 6. Now I want my brother to explain this, " Jonathan 
 said unto David, 0 Lord God of Israel^'' &c., 1 Sam. 
 XX, 12. He cannot dispute, that if he found a passage 
 which read, "And Peter said unto Jesus, O Lord God 
 of Israel," he would bring it up as positive proof, better 
 far than any he has found. If Jesus had had a prophet 
 and been called God, (Elohim) as Moses, he would have 
 considered it good proof of supreme Deity. 
 
 He quotes, Heb. i, 3, " Upholding all things by the 
 word of Ms ]}ower^^ to prove that Christ upholds all 
 things independent of the Father, by his own power. 
 The text reads : 
 
 " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners 
 spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets ; 
 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, 
 whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom 
 also he made the worlds ; 3 Who, being the brightness 
 of his glory and the express image of his person, and 
 upholding all things by the word of his power, when he 
 had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right 
 band of the Majesty on high." 
 
 You see the personal pronoun his^ all through, applies 
 to God ; when it applies to the Son, it changes to him- 
 self. So that the text says, that he upholds all things by 
 the Father's power. But again, this is the Son, whom 
 my brother don't believe is divine. See Clarke, Luke i, 
 25. This is a very crooked system. He cannot under- 
 stand how so much glory can be given to the Son of 
 God. " John presents his likeness, as the brightness of 
 
116 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 the Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 
 His head and hair white like wool, and his eves as a 
 flame of fire — his feet like unto fine brass, burning in a 
 furnace — his countenance as the sun, shining in his 
 strength, and a sharp two-edged sword proceeding from, 
 his mouth. Clothed with a white and glistering garment 
 down to the foot, and gh-t about the paps with a golden 
 girdle. Upon his thigh the name written King of 
 kings and Lord of lords, and upon his head many 
 crowns : thus he walks among the golden candlesticks, 
 and holds the stars in his right hand; redeems the worlds 
 which he had created, and sits at the right hand of the 
 great eternal One, as the only Son, heir, and representa- 
 tive of eternity's great King.*' Will my brother deny 
 these titles to the Son of God ? 
 
 He says, that the three persons do not hold the scepter 
 in heaven, only one holds it. Where then are the two 
 other persons ? Ai-e they standing looking on ? equals 
 and yet no scepter ? God and yet no scepter ? Have 
 they no crown '{ no honors ? no divine glory ? Does not 
 my brother worship the whole three ? 
 
 Go back, my brother, and try again. Give us a better 
 explanation ! They must be equal in glory, for the creed 
 says so I i.e., the constitution and Discipline, as he prefers 
 that name. My brother next quotes Rev. i, 18. ^^I am 
 . he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive 
 for evermore, Amen ; and have tlie keys of hell and of 
 death." Xo, said my brother, "I am he that liveth, tliat 
 means the divine nature. And was dead, that means 
 the human nature.'' Who told my brother all this ? or 
 did he guess at it ? Read the whole text, and you will see 
 that this was the Son of man (verse i, 1-3.) that said all 
 this. He again quotes John i, 1, but there is nothing 
 said of Trinity, or three persons there. Yet he thinks 
 that there is an argument for him, because the apostle 
 says "all things were made by him ;'' but Heb. i, 2. says 
 that God made the worlds by his Son ; but my brother 
 don't believe that God had a Son, when he made the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITT. 
 
 117 
 
 worlds. There is no intimation of the Trinity in the 
 Bible. It teaches that God is One and only one, and 
 that the Son was with the Father before the world was, 
 as says the Nicene creed, '^begotton before all worlds 
 by whom God created all things. This Son of God is 
 rejected in my brother's system. He has no place for 
 the Son of God. hence he says, many are called Sons of 
 God. But the Scriptures teach us that God has but one 
 Son : " Having, therefore, one Son." Mark xii, 6. A 
 certain kins: made a marriasre for his Son, not sons. 
 Jesus is never called one of the Sons of God, but the Son 
 of the living God — the only begotten Son of God — the 
 well beloved Son of God — and angels and men are com- 
 manded to worship him, as the first begotten, which proves 
 that they are not his equals. To which of the angels 
 said God, at any time. Thou art my Son ? Heb. i, 5. 
 This text shows that they are not the Sons of God. My 
 brother has never answered those texts which prove 
 that Jesus was God's Son before he came in the flesh : he 
 came out from God — came down from heaven — came 
 out from the Father — had glory with the Father before 
 the world was ; though he was rich, yet for our sakes 
 he became poor ; a body hast thou prepared me ; God 
 created the worlds by him ; he was made a little lower 
 than the angels. So it says that God gave his Son, and 
 sent forth his Son, and sent his own Son in the likeness 
 of sinful flesh, and that he took upon him the form of a 
 servant, and appeared in fashion as a man. Now let my 
 brother tell us which nature of his Christ will answer 
 this description. 
 
 The truth is, there is no Trinity in the Bible, but one 
 God; one Son of God, of the same nature of the Father, 
 and one Spirit of God. The Christians believe that there 
 is one God^ and but one God, and that God is one, and 
 his name One, in contradistinction to Trinitarian ism, 
 which teaches that three persons are all God, and that 
 God is composed of three parts, as first person, second 
 person, third pei^on, and that his name is three, or 
 
118 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Trinity. I will now introduce some of the evidence on 
 which the Christian faith is founded, and show you that 
 this is the faith of the Bible. 
 
 1st. In the creation of the world, Gen. i, 1, we read 
 of but One God. tlie beginning God created the 
 
 heavens and the eartliP And in giving the law, the same 
 doctrine is enforced by the command: ^^Ilear^ 0 Israel^ 
 the Lord thy God^ is one LordP Deut. vi, 4. Also, in 
 the New Testament, the same doctrine is enforced. Paul 
 says: " God is One." Gal. iii, 20. Prophets and priests 
 sang the praises of God, as the Holy One, — the High and 
 Lofty One, — and the Mighty One. See Is. li, 15 — xliii, 
 15, and i, 24. And there are more than one hundred texts 
 where God is called One. But in no one place in the 
 whole Bible is God ever called three, or Trinity. 
 
 2d. In Deuteronomy xxxii, 12, he is called, God 
 alone — and he is called God alone, or the only God, over 
 one hundred times ; but nowhere is it said that he is 
 not the only God, or that he has two companions. 
 
 3d. In Is. xl, 25, the doctrine is taught that God is 
 without equal. "To whom will ye liken me, or shall 
 I be equal, saith the Holy One." And in more than fifty 
 ojther texts, we are taught that God has no equal. But 
 there is not one text in all the Bible which says that God 
 has an equal. 
 
 4th. In John xvii, 3, Jesus declares that his Father 
 is the Onhj True God. And in over fifty other texts, the 
 same doctrine is expressly taught. But there is not one 
 text, which says that the Father is not the only true God, 
 or what would be equivalent, that two other persons are 
 as much the true God, as the Father. 
 
 5th. God speaks of himself as the true, and only true 
 God, under the personal pronouns, in the singular num- 
 ber, as I, My, Me ; in opposition to the plural. Us, 
 We, Ours, &c., over one thousand one hundred times. 
 "/ even / am He^ and there is no God with Me," &c. 
 Deut. xxxii, 39. But were there three persons, one could 
 not speak thus of himself, but must say We, Us, &c.. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 119 
 
 as is always the case, where there is more than one 
 person. 
 
 6th. God is called invisible^ immortal^ the Father of 
 all, &c.; together with over one hundred and ten divine 
 epithets, which are never given to the Son, nor to any 
 other person in the absolute sense. 
 
 Tth. Jesus says that God is his Father, and his God, 
 John XX, 17 ; and teaches this doctrine in over one hun- 
 dred places ; but never calls himself God's father, or the 
 Father's God. 
 
 8th. Paul says, 1 Cor. viii, 6, That though others, 
 both in heaven and earth, are called gods, yet to us there 
 is but one God, the Father. And there are thirteen 
 hundred and twenty-six texts in the IN'ew Testament 
 alone, teaching the same doctrine ; but there is not one 
 which teaches that the Christians have any other God. 
 
 9th. Other persons, however, are called gods, in the 
 New Testament, about tv^eniy times^ as follows : Heathen 
 gods thirteen times , Jesus three times; magistrates 
 three times ; the Devil once ; mir appetites once ; but 
 never so as to deceive any person who has not before 
 imbibed the error. 
 
 10th. Jesus says that the true worshipers shall worship 
 the Father. Jno. iv, 23. And in hundreds of texts God 
 is called a Father ; but never a Son. 
 
 11th. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, by pre- 
 cept or example, in over twenty-five places ; but never 
 taught us to pray to three persons, or to a second or third 
 person. 
 
 12th. The Father is called Jehovah, in the Bible, six 
 thousand eight hundred and twelve times ; but no other 
 person is ever called Jehovah, without some qualification. 
 
 13th. God is addressed, in the Bible, as one person, 
 as '-Thou," '-He," "Him," over four thousand times. 
 Language which is never addressed to more than one 
 person, and hence each text is as positive an argument 
 that three persons are not God, as though it said, only 
 one person is God, or only one of the three is God. Four 
 
120 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 thousand texts thus defiue God to be but one person ; 
 while he is never addressed or spoken of in the plural 
 form of the pronouns, as jou, them, they, &c., in one 
 single text ; 3'et this would be the only proper way to 
 give them equal glory, if there were three persons God. 
 I have now cited thousands of texts, which prove, in 
 Bible language, that the Father is the only true God — 
 that the Lord our God is one Lord — one Lord and his 
 name One — that God is one ; but he has not found one 
 solitary text which says Trinity, or God is three, or the 
 Father is not the only true God. Now if a faith, not 
 found in the Bible, is just as good as one found there, 
 what need have we of Bibles ? The text that says, ''Let 
 us go down," &c., Gen. xi, IG, is a bad one for those to 
 quote on this subject, who believe in the omniscience and 
 omnipresence of God. I leave my brother to explain it. 
 That God should say, Let vs make man, is not strange, 
 for he made all things by his Son, Ileb. i, 1-3, and of course 
 spoke to him. So in every case where us is used, God 
 speaks to another. So I can sa}^, " let m go^'' yet I am 
 no Trinity. Not only is God never addressed, in Scrip- 
 ture, as three persons, but our Methodist brethren, who 
 profess to believe that he is three persons, do not so pray 
 to him. They never address him with the plural form of 
 the pronouns. They do not say you^ when praying, but 
 thou and thee ; so also in their hymns. -They always 
 come to one in the name of another, and more often pray 
 for, than to, the third. This is almost uniformly the case, 
 except in afewdoxologiesof "God the Father, God the Son, 
 and God the Spirit — three in one." But in all their prayers 
 they feel the unity of God. The Trinity never enters 
 into the deep consciousness of their soul's religion, show- 
 ing that the unity of the Godhead has entered deep into 
 their heart and life. The Father, my friends, is the only 
 true God. John xvii, 3. That God is one, the Bible 
 asserts. Is it not true ? Shall we not believe it ? Why 
 are you slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have 
 spoken ? Is it not good doctrine ? Can not we be saved 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 121 
 
 by the same religion which saved the apostles and early 
 Christians ? Dr. Mosheim well says, that the Trinitarian 
 creed has been the cause of many heresies. Brethren, 
 let us put this human doctrine lar from us, and return to 
 the pure language and belief of Eevelation. Then may 
 we all be one again. To prove the Bible doctrine, I have 
 cited you to 12,923 texts arranged in classes, and have 
 presented you representative texts of each class. If my 
 brother will take them up, I am willing to take them up 
 singly, one by one. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Eighth reply : 
 
 I must return my brother's compliment, and say he has 
 done quite as well as I expected. He asserts that the 
 language employed by Stockton would be taken by me 
 as deifying the person that used it. My brother labors 
 under a serious mistake. I should never once dream of 
 connecting such language with divinity, and should never 
 have thought, had it been applied to Jesus, of taking it 
 as proof of his being a divine Being. I should as soon 
 assume that any other conceivable language would be as 
 much a proof as that ; but I will not be drawn away from 
 the argument by matters having no bearing upon the 
 subject, though this is but one of many things of a simi- 
 lar stamp which my brother has presented. 
 
 He says of " That in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of 
 the Godhead, bodily," that because you may have a chest 
 full of gold, therefore the chest would not be equal to 
 the gold ; or that because there are multitudes of persons 
 assembled in this house, the house is not equal to the mul- 
 titude. Well, now, if the fact that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost dwell bodily in Jesus Christ, does not con- 
 stitute one God, the true God of the Bible, then I confess 
 I would not be able to find a single passage in the whole 
 Word of God, that would be illustrative of the character 
 and being of God. 
 
 Who ever assumed that the human body, which the 
 Word or Logos took upon him, was, in its essential ele- 
 11 
 
122 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ox THE TRIXITY. 
 
 ments and nature equal with the Deity ? Who ever 
 asserted this ? No one ! We have argued its essential 
 equality with human nature as free from sin, but through 
 the sacrifice of a suitable atonement it might become a 
 mediator between God and man. Thus would pardon be 
 secured to the guilty rebel, and the door of hope opened 
 to a perishing world. 
 
 My brother, in alluding to the little paper he handed 
 me, complains that I do not answer the points to which 
 he especially referred. I answered things which I found 
 in the little paper; but what has that paper to do with 
 the question involved in discussion? Namely, that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the Methodist Pro- 
 testant Discipline, is contraiT to the Word of God, in re- 
 lation to the equality of Jesus Christ with the Father. 
 What has the great mass of lumber, which my brother 
 has seen fit to introduce, to do with the proposition under 
 consideration ? It is my desire to be found close about 
 the subject; and though he is in the affirmative, and 
 wanders from the subject, I must not be held accountable 
 for it. He would make the Methodists in England, if 
 not in this country, accountable for what might be found 
 in the Prayer-book and Discipline of the Church of 
 England. We were once part and parcel of the Episco- 
 palians ; but a separation took place, and now the Metho- 
 dist and the Established Church of England are as dis- 
 tinct as any two Christian denominations in this country ; 
 but I must correct the statements of my brother, which, I 
 dare say. he fell into innocently. 
 
 He wishes to know if I will worship J esus the man, 
 or Jesus the divine nature, as my whole Saviour ? He 
 does not venture to deny that J esus was human ; and 
 then he turns round and asserts that his brother will not 
 worship Jesus Christ. Where the brother gathered that 
 information from. I can not state. Jesus Christ is the 
 object of my worship. I worship him as the true God — 
 as the only tangible manifestation of God — as the only 
 object of the faith revealed to the world. The humanity 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 128 
 
 of Jesus Christ is associated with the divine nature mys- 
 teriously. The association and manner of it, I do not 
 understand. The fact is a fact of Revelation. I vi^orship 
 him in his true character as God, the second person in the 
 adorable Trinity. I worship him as God, equal in sub- 
 stance, power, glory, and eternity, with the Father. I 
 worship him in connection with the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost, as the one God of the Bible — the only true God. 
 Hence my good brother, I hope, will no more make the 
 statement that I do not worship Christ. I do not wor- 
 ship him as having delegated power. I could not wor- 
 ship him if a doubt rested in my mind, that he existed 
 at the will of another; that he may be able now to 
 grant me all my request, and to-morrow his delegated 
 power may be withdrawn, and he may be unable to grant 
 my request, and meet my necessities. 
 
 This doctrine of delegated power, from one being to 
 another, who is not co-equal with him in substance and 
 in power, involves in it much absurdity — much that is 
 impossible; its resemblance to skepticism, its near approxi- 
 mation to atheism. If all power in heaven and in earth 
 is given into the hands of Jesus Christ, then there is 
 no power which is not conferred, and if that power is 
 conferred, it is the power of omnipotence ; it is the power 
 that supports all material order; it is the power from 
 which emanates all material law, that sustains universal 
 existence, the comforts of life, both material and imma- 
 terial ; it is the source of all existence, if it were, as my 
 brother intimates ; the being from whom this power 
 was transferred loses his essential attribute — the Creator 
 is annihilated, the giver of this power falls annihilated. 
 My brother at last admits, that a transfer of infinite 
 perfections of the Almighty, to a created being, would 
 be a transfer of power that could not exist in two natures 
 at the same time. If you admit it, you have the absurdity 
 of two infinites at the same time. The brother quotes 
 " all power in heaven and earth is given into my hands," 
 and then he asserts he has power only from his own life. 
 
124 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 If the power of supporting his own existence is given to 
 him, and lie asserts that he has power to lay his life 
 down and power to take it again, it involves a contradic- 
 tion to what has been asserted by my brother. If he has 
 life in himself, he has it not from another. If he has the 
 right and the power of sustaining his own life, it did not 
 come from another. And when my brother asserts that 
 all power is given unto him, he asserts that which is not 
 possibly true. While my brother exhorts us to abandon 
 these unscriptural phrases and notions, I would, in the best 
 of feeling, turn to him, and urge upon him to abandon his 
 doctrine, which is an approximation to absolute atheism. 
 His position necessarily annihilates the Lord Jehovah. 
 I assume that the attributes of Deity, such as t)mnipo- 
 tence, omniscience, and omnipresence, being transferable, 
 is in itself an inconsistency. For if these attributes 
 could be transferred, the original power ceases, and the 
 original existence ceases with it. My brother has been 
 greatly concerned about the language of the Poet ; 
 
 " God, the mighty Maker, died." 
 
 I may again assure ]i\m that Trinitarians have never 
 believed it. My brotEer endeavored to draw the doctrine 
 out of the Book of Discipline, but he could not torture 
 such a doctrine out of it. 
 
 The promises of Christ must stand. Heaven and earth 
 may pass away, but his Word shall not pass away. He 
 says, where two or three are gathered together in my 
 name, there am I in the midst of them. Sow if Christ 
 be not omnipresent, how could this be ? There is no place 
 in which he is not. Indeed, he might be in the four divi- 
 sions of the globe at the same time, so that he might be 
 with the numberless Christians that truly worship in his 
 name ; and if he be not omnipresent, it is utterly impos- 
 sible that he could fulfill the conditions of his promise. 
 But can two omnipresents exist at the same time Could 
 two persons of omniscient ubiquity occupy the same 
 place at the same time ? If I ascend into heaven, thou 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 125 
 
 art there; if I make my bed in hell,'' (fcc. Here the 
 universality of the presence of Jehovah is asserted. He 
 claims this attribute for himself, as we have shown ; and 
 of Christ claiming this attribute for himself, it is one of 
 the essential ^perfections of his divine nature, and of 
 course, it can be possessed by no other being at the same 
 time. Surely then, my brother has, in my estimation, 
 made a very serious blunder, in introducing the argument 
 in the form he has done, and in the present connection. 
 
 lie then alludes to my quotation, Heb. i, 3. " Who 
 being the brightness of his glory and the express image 
 of his person, and upholding all things by the word of 
 his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat 
 down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." I 
 remark, in purging our sins he did it by himself ; he 
 did it by himself, by his own authority ; by the exercise 
 of his own power, and I inquire, who can forgive sins 
 but he alone against whom sin has been committed I It 
 is not a work that can be done by proxy ; that power, 
 when he said " the Son of Man hath power on earth to 
 forgive sins, " he assumes, to exercise his authority. He 
 exercises an almighty prerogative, as the apostle says, 
 " when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at 
 the right hand of the Majesty on high." I assume it is 
 the same person, in the same connection, that upholdeth 
 all things by the word of his power. ]\Iy brother says 
 that the unity of God is mentioned in over one hundred 
 places in the Scriptures. I am a rigid Unitarian. I 
 sustain the Scripture doctrine of the unity of God, the 
 oneness of Jehovah, with all the energy I possess, that 
 the Lord our God is one Lord, and that this one Lord 
 is constituted of three persons — the Father, Word, and 
 Holy Spirit. He proceeds to say that more than one 
 hundred epithets are applied to the Father, which are not 
 applied to the Son. No doubt it is correct ; it is sti-ictly 
 proper that it should be so. In one hundred and fifty 
 passages, there are epithets employed in reference to the 
 Son, wliich are not employed in reference to the Father ; 
 
126 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 for one class relate to his humanity, and the other to his 
 essential Divinity ; but of which passages, therefore, I 
 believe he does mention that there are over thirteen 
 hundred texts, which speak of God the Father. If they 
 were multiplied a thousand times, I would still indorse 
 them. Tliese texts equally support the position I occupy. 
 In sixteen hundred passages he is called Jehovah. The 
 first occurs when he reveals himself to Israel ; it occurs 
 frequently throughout the Scriptures, and is expressive 
 of the God of the Bible — the mighty Jehovah. He then 
 Bays, our Trinitarian creed does not sink down deep into 
 the heart, and urges us most earnestly, to put it away. 
 I thank God that this Trinitarian creed has had a long 
 lodgment in my heart — deeply imprinted there. I love 
 God, the Father, because he first loved me. I love God, 
 the Son, because he came into the world that he might 
 be a propitiation for my sins, and not for mine only, but 
 for the sins of the whole world. I love the Holy Ghost, 
 because he is the agent awakening me, and bringing me 
 to a sense of my perishing state, and danger. I love the 
 Holy Spirit, because he is my regenerator and sanctifier ; 
 because in his communion he is the Source of joy and 
 comfort, by day and by night, in a happy and blessed 
 experience of more than seventeen years, when he found 
 me a wandering orphan boy, upon the dark mountains of 
 Bin and folly, and brought me as a broken reed, to the 
 feet of Immanuel God ; and I love him, that he has 
 Bealed me as an heir of an immortal inheritance beyond 
 the grave. And hence, these truths have found a deep 
 lodgment, sir, in the heart of your opponent. And I 
 hope that, in passing Jordan, when I shall dip my san- 
 dals into its chilling waves, my Lord shall sustain me ; 
 and though the river be wide spread, and its waters dark, 
 yet shall I see the pebbles under my feet, but beyond, I 
 view the rising spires of the distant City, the Xew Jeru- 
 salem, the home of the saints, where I shall be happy to 
 clasp my brother's hands upon that smiling shore. But 
 while we are here, we will worship at the shrine of this 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 127 
 
 one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, trusting in 
 his might and relying on his power, amid all the changes 
 of life, and reign with him — one God, the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, in a better world. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Ninth address: 
 
 There is one thing, my friends, that I wish yoa to notice, 
 all my quotations and references from human authorities, 
 are on my brother's side of the house. I prove my ex- 
 position of Scripture by his witnesses ; he proves his, by 
 his own witnesses, which makes them, in this debate, no 
 proof at all. Yet my brother falls back upon these Tri- 
 nitarian authorities, as if they were to decide the ques- 
 tion. Strange idea ! My friend's closing speech, yester- 
 day, was remarkable for four things : 1st. Skeptical mode 
 of thought; 2d. Irreverence for the divine attributes; 
 3d. Most careful avoidance of my argument ; and 4th. 
 Unsparing lung-power. But my brother should remem- 
 ber that the prophet said, " Though a strong wind rent 
 the mountains, yet the Lord was not in the wind ; and 
 after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in 
 the earthquake ; and after the earthquake a fire, but the 
 Lord was not in the fire ; but after the fire a still small 
 voice, and the Lord was there." It is not the thunder 
 that kills, but the lightning; however, some are often 
 frightened with the thunder more than the lightning. 
 
 1 liked my brother's exhortation, in his closing remarks, 
 much. I am glad that he enjoys the blessings of reli- 
 gion. I was quite afiected under his good talk about 
 passing over Jordan, and dipping his sandals in its 
 chilling waves, and wmling through the dark river, and 
 seeing the pebbles under his feet ; but this does not 
 prove the Trinity. 
 
 My friend carefully avoids my argument. I have pre- 
 sented above, forty-four philosophical arguments, show- 
 ing that God was not Christ, since God could not die, 
 could not pray, could not receive power, (fee; which are 
 all unanswered. My fifth argument, concerning the three 
 
128 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 infinite persons, lie only noticed by saying, that but one 
 of the persons held the scepter, or sat on the throne ; 
 and to my interrogation of how the two others were en- 
 gaged then, or how they were equal ? he gave no answer. 
 
 To my twenty-five arguments and Scriptures showing 
 that more was said of men than he had proved of Christ, 
 he barely replied, " It is not said in the same sense." 
 
 My interrogation as to the worship of the Lamb that 
 was slain, he has not answered. Xow, I insist on his 
 stating plainly, whether he will worship the human part 
 of his God — the human part of his Christ, or only the 
 divine part, rejecting God's body ; for he has acknow- 
 ledged that God has a body ; thus his God, his Christ, 
 is part God and part man. Now does he worship all, 
 or part ? Will he worship the Lamb that was slain ? 
 "Will he worship the man Christ Jesus ? 
 
 I proposed him over three hundred texts, proving that 
 the Father is the only true God ; but he declines answer- 
 ing them. I now insist on his either acknowledging that 
 they are irreconcilable with his theory, or answering 
 them. Yet I will not ask too much, but if he will ex- 
 plain three texts satisfactorily, I will be satisfied. I will 
 give him John xvii, 3, and let him tell us how^ the Father, 
 by the personal pronoun ihee^ singular number, is the only 
 true God, and yet the Son and Holy Ghost as much the true 
 God as he ? Also, 1 Cor. viii, 4-8, ''Though many both 
 in heaven and earth are gods, or are called Gods, yet to us 
 there is but one God, the Father." Also, Epli. iv, 4, 
 " There is one body and one spirit, one hope, one Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who 
 is above all," &c. How is this one God and Father of 
 all, greater than all^ greater than both the Son and Holy 
 Ghost? Above all! 
 
 My friend evaded altogether the point in my argu- 
 ment of over two hundred Scriptures, where God says, 
 " / am God, and beside me there is none else," &c. 
 Now I insist on the brother meeting these, and explain- 
 ing how one person in the Trinity can say " I am God " 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 129 
 
 in one person, to the exclusion of the " two other per- 
 sons," as Jimeson calls them ? I insist upon the gen- 
 tlemen either answering, or acknowledging his inability 
 to do so. He has frankly acknowledged that God has a 
 body. He has also admitted, contrary to his creed, that 
 the human and divine natures of Christ were sepamted 
 three days and three nights. Would he worship the "man" 
 on the cross I He has acknowledged that the Son of God 
 is not eternal — hence not God, in defiance of the constitu- 
 tion and Discipline. In making these concessions, he falls 
 under the ban of his brethren ; for saying God has a body, 
 Mattison declares is no better than Atheism; p. 46. In 
 denying the eternal Son, they say, he denies the eternal 
 Father. His opinion that Christ is the Son of God only 
 by the miraculous conception, they say, is groundless, 
 absurd and blasphemous. Yet, with all these difficulties 
 to contend with, my brother still attempts, vainly at- 
 tempts, to find discrepancies in the Christian faith. But 
 these discrepancies only exist in his imagination, and 
 fall back with tenfold force upon his own contradictory 
 system. Eighteen hundred years ago Peter confessed 
 that Jesus was the Son of God. Since then, Peter de- 
 nied him, but he still remained the Son of God ; since 
 tlien Judas has betrayed him, but still he has remained 
 the Son of God ; and since then wicked J ews have cru- 
 cified him, but still he has remained the Son of God. 
 The pei*secuting power of Rome could not annihilate 
 this doctrine. Porphyry and Celsus the pagan infidels, 
 vainly warred against it ; it has stood the shocks of 
 eighteen centuries ; the former floods of skepticism, fire 
 and sword, have not been able to overthrow it. Upon 
 this rock will I build my church," said Jesus, and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it." John wrote 
 his gospel to prove it ; and God from heaven owned it. 
 It was the test of fellowship to the eunuch ; and the faith 
 that overcame the world to John. God the Father re- 
 vealed it, Jesus blessed it, and glory crowned it ; and my 
 Drotlier will find that all his endeavoi-s against it will fail 
 
130 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 The brother proposed to me the following supposed 
 difficulties. 1st. AVhen I thanked the Lord, he said, 
 very wittily, that he did not know which Lord 1 thanked. 
 Now. he must have forgotten that I am not a Trinitarian. 
 I might say of his thanks — though it would be uncourte- 
 ous — that I did not know whether he thanked God the 
 Father. God the Son. or God the Holy Ghost. But such 
 expressions are not reverential, and have no application 
 to the Christians, who have but one God. and who own 
 but one person as God. 
 
 2d. He appealed very pathetically to know, if the full- 
 ness of the Godhead bodily dwelling in Christ Jesus, 
 ■would not make liim equal with God. or prove him God ? 
 I answer. 'So. It proves that he is not that God which 
 the creed says has no body, but dwelt in him bodily. 
 Saints are filled with the fullness of God. yet they are 
 not God. 
 
 3d. He endeavors to avoid the prayer to the Holy 
 Trinity, on the ground of the English Methodists having 
 no connection with the Episcopal church. My brother 
 does not understand that subject. All the Methodist 
 sects sprang out of the Episcopal church, and the English 
 Methodists are still considered as remotely connected 
 with that church, and in some of the churches use the 
 Prayer-book, and prayers placed in the Prayer-book are 
 commanded to be prayed. But the connection to which I 
 refer, is in doctiine, which, on this point, is the same in 
 both.' 
 
 My friend discussed the omnipotent attributes in an 
 nnphilosophical style of exhortation. He is deprecating 
 delegated power — a term which I have not used — speak- 
 ing of Christ Jesus' saying all power in heaven and in 
 earth is given unto me, he irreverently remarked, that if 
 Christ's power was delegated, he would not trust him ! 
 Shocking I Then he can not tmst the Father who sent 
 him; for to doubt one is to doubt both. 
 
 Yet he said, the first day of the discussion, that it 
 meant that Jesus, to accomplish the great work of re- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 131 
 
 demption, needed the power of the whole three ; that it 
 was all given him — so that, on his own admission, he has 
 bound himself to reject his Saviour ! But yesterday, in 
 his desperate extremity, he cried, "I don't believe it! " 
 What ? not believe the Bible ? O yes, brother, you must 
 believe the word of Jesus. But again, he said, if he re- 
 ceived his power he could not trust him ; literally, could 
 not trust the Father, but feared that God would withdraw 
 his power from Jesus. Did not his " very man " receive 
 his power ? and will he not trust him ? 
 
 Not trust his blood ? 
 
 Not trust his word ? 
 
 Not trust his mediatorial aid ? 
 How then will my brother be saved ? But he will trust 
 this very man though his power be delegated ; then, 
 why not trust the 8on of God? 
 
 Does he reply, the very man I can trust because of his 
 close union with the divinity ; but this union can not be 
 as close as the union of the Son with the Father. Then, 
 why not trust him ? But he says, the very man was sac- 
 rificed on the altar of divinity, and thus became all-suffi- 
 cient. This is a strange idea ; but if true, is it not just 
 as true of the Son of God ? and could not the altar sanctify 
 the Son of God as well as a very man f Then why not 
 trust the Son of God ? "He that rejecteth me, rejecteth 
 him that sent me, " said Jesus. 
 
 Again, he says, " But if God gave all 'power to the 
 Son^ then there was no power not given : omnipotence 
 was conferred to another, and the giver is annihilated 
 hence, the giver will cease to exist, God will be annihi- 
 lated ! Shocking conclusion I founded upon principles 
 most illogical ! 
 
 But how will my brother avoid the consummation of 
 his rashness plunging him into the atheism which he 
 courted ? He has admitted that all power was given to 
 Christ to make an atonement — that is, all power was 
 given to the m.an. Thus, by his own logic, God gave 
 all his power — that is, passed over omnipotence to the 
 
132 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 very man, a creature, so that this creature became the 
 omnipotent God, and God ceased to exist; and his God, 
 consequently, is only 1800 years old, and so far from 
 being a Trinity of divine persons, is a deified creature, 
 with delegated power. Such are the atheistical conclu- 
 sions to which he is forced by his unpMlosophical pre- 
 mises. But, perhaps he will ask. How can I avoid this 
 conclusion ? well, every way. Has not my brother learned 
 of God, that giving does not impoverish him ; nor with- 
 holding, enrich him ?" Has he thought so little of om- 
 nipotence as to imagine that it is confined to heaven and 
 earth ? Does he not know that a power limited to heaven 
 and earth, is but finite power? a given amount? Infi- 
 nite power lies all beyond any given amount, however 
 great. 
 
 God does not give away his own essential power. 
 Paul says, It is manifested that he is excepted that did 
 put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 34. My brother 
 said, that if God gave the Son to have life in himself, 
 then there would be two self-existent persons ; but that 
 two self-existent, or two infinite beings can not exist. 
 Very well ; I do not believe in two infinite persons ; but 
 my brother believes not only that two, but that three in- 
 finite persons exist ; and he can not deny it. If he says 
 that the three persons are not three beings, I demand his 
 authority for such unnatural ideas. Yet, let him define 
 his position, and tell us what he means by a person, and 
 wherein a person difiers from a heing f or what person 
 can be iuiagined that has no being ? Yet, he has three 
 infinite ones, existing in the same space. Tell me, my 
 brother, how three infinites can thus exist? Answer 
 your own question, or abandon your system. But, not- 
 withstanding his three persons in the Godhead, he claims 
 to hold the unity of God. I will let a Hindoo teach him 
 knowledge. Eead Kammohun Roy, p. 171. " Should 
 we follow, on the other hand, the interpretation adopted 
 by Trinitarian Christians, namely, that the Godhead 
 though it is one, yet consists of three persons, and, con- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITT. 
 
 133 
 
 sequently, one substance of the Godhead, might abide 
 with the other, both being equally God, we should, in 
 that case, be forced to view the Godhead in the same 
 light as we consider mankind and other genera; for, 
 no doubt can exist of the unity of mankind. The plu- 
 rality of men consists in their persons ; and, therefore, 
 we may safely, under the same plea, support the unity 
 of man, notwithstanding the plurality of persons, included 
 under the term mankind. In that case, also, Christians 
 ought, in conscience, to refrain from accusing Hindoos of 
 polytheism ; for every Hindoo, we daily observe, con- 
 fesses the unity of the Godhead. They only advance 
 a plausible excuse for their pol}i:heism ; which is, that 
 notwithstanding the unity of the Godhead, it consists of 
 millions of substances assuming different offices, corre- 
 sponding to the number of the various transactions super- 
 intended in the universe by Divine Providence, which 
 they consider as infinitely more numerous than those of 
 the Trinitarian scheme." 
 
 My brother next says, that Christ Jesus claimed omni- 
 potence. I deny it, and require the proof. Jesus said to 
 the Jews, who thus accused him, " Yerily, verily, I say 
 unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself." John v, 19. 
 He says, Christ claimed omniscience. I deny it, and de- 
 mand the proof. Jesus said, " Of that day and hour know- 
 eth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only." He 
 says that Jesus claimed omnipresence. This I deny, and 
 ask for the proof. Jesus said, " I am glad for your sakes 
 that I was not there." But my brother says, " Did not 
 Jesus say, where two or three are assembled in my name, 
 there am I ?" Yes ; but Jesus does not say how; and if 
 actually in person, yet, though it were in untold millions 
 of places, yet would it be a certain number, and so fall 
 infinitely short of omnipresence. Omnipresence is every- 
 where — everywhere, whether two or three are assembled 
 or not — a limited presence is present at certain places. 
 This is the case in the text. Wherever two or three are 
 assembled in my name, there am I in the midst. My 
 
134 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 brother believes the evil spirit present in a plurality of 
 places ; will he allow less to the blessed Son of God ? 
 
 There is one thing that I wish the audience to remem- 
 ber, viz: that I have left no argument of the brother 
 unanswered ; and that I have carefully reviewed his few 
 scriptures, although I occupy the affirmative, while, 
 although my brother is on the negative, he scarcely no- 
 tices an argument of mine ; but spends his time in read- 
 ing authors with whom he is so unacquainted as not to 
 know their names ; or in the delivery of off-hand extem- 
 poraneous speeches and exhorations, entirely foreign to 
 the subject. 
 
 Let my brother explain the following texts : — 
 
 " For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own 
 will, but the will of him that sent me." John vi, 38. 
 "Which nature came down, the one always down, or God ? 
 
 " But that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
 power on earth to forgive sins ; then, said he, to the sick 
 of the palsy. Arise, take up thy bed and go into thine 
 house." Matt, ix, 6. He was made a little lower than 
 the angels," &c. Which nature, the one that was always 
 lower, or God ? 
 
 " Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became 
 poor," &c. What nature became poor, the one always 
 poor, or God ? 
 
 " I have power to lay down my life," &c. "Which 
 nature had this power, the one that was mortal, or God 
 that could not die ? 
 
 "All power is given unto me," &c. To which nature 
 is all the power given, the God which always had it, or 
 to the man ? 
 
 Let him answer these, and I will present him with 
 sixty of like nature. 
 
 The brother's theory is liable to the sore objection of 
 having no mediator between God and man. Objecting 
 to the Christian doctrine of the Son of God, lie has left 
 but God and man, with no medium, no mediator between 
 God and man ; no divine mediator, and no divine sacri- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 135 
 
 fice. He acknowledges that God can not die ; and the 
 Bible says, " Ciu'sed is he that pntteth ti-ust in man," &c.; 
 and Clarke says, that God will no more accept of man's 
 blood, in sacrifice, than swine^s blood. 
 
 I will now present him with some texts, showing the 
 peculiar attributes of God and the Son of God. 
 
 Peculiar Attnhutes of God, in Bihlical and Philo- 
 sophical Arguments. 
 
 1. God is self-existent. 
 
 2. Omniscient. 
 
 3. Omnipotent. 
 
 4. Omnipresent. 
 
 5. Unbegotten and Unborn. 
 
 6. Has no Father. 
 
 7. Is not a Son. 
 
 8. Isever prays. 
 
 9. Never gives thanks. 
 
 10. He is always first. 
 
 11. First in creeds, first in doxologies, first in prayers. 
 
 12. And first in the Trinity. 
 
 13. God has no physical body. 
 
 14. He is invisible. — Jno. i, 18. 
 
 15. Only hath immortality. — 1 Tim. vi, 16. 
 
 16. Unchangeable. — Mai. iii, 6. 
 
 17. Is the Father of the Son of God. 
 
 18. Is worshiped with the Lamb. — Kev. v, 13. 
 
 19. The God who gave his Son. 
 
 20. Will finally reign all in all.— 1 Cor. xv, 28. 
 
 21. To whom the Son will be subject. — Yerse 24. 
 
 22. Is not the Son of man. — Num. xxiii, 19. 
 
 23. Is not a man. — Ibid. 
 
 24. Does not repent. 
 
 25. Can not be tempted. 
 
 26. Does not sleep, hunger, or thirst. 
 
 27. His will is supreme. — Jno. i, 38. 
 
 28. His Son is at his right hand. — Acts vii, 56. 
 
 29. God of the Son of God.—John ii, 17. 
 
136 
 
 DlSCrSSIOX ox THE TRIXITY. 
 
 30. Only true God.— John xvii, 3. 
 
 31. The but one God the Father.— 1 Cor. viii 6. 
 
 32. The God who is above all. — Eph. iv, 6. 
 
 33. Greater than the Son. — John xiv, 28. 
 
 34. Greater than all. — John x, 29. 
 
 35. Incorruptible. — 1 Tim. i, 17. 
 
 36. Only wise God.— Ibid. 
 
 37. King eternal. — Ibid. 
 
 Peculiarities of the Son of God, 
 
 1. Jesus is the Son of God. 
 
 2. A mediator between God and man. 
 
 3. Our advocate with God. 
 
 4. The Lamb that took the book out of God's right 
 
 hand. — Rev. v, 7. 
 
 5. The way to God. 
 
 6. The hi£^h-priest appearing in the presence of God. 
 
 Heb.^ix, 2i. 
 
 7. The Son whom God sent. 
 
 8. The Son whom God gave. 
 
 9. The true viiie^ of which we are branches, and 
 
 God the husbandman. 
 
 10. The Son sent last of all. (Parable of vineyard.) 
 
 11. Son who sits down with the Father in his throne. 
 
 12. "Who maketh intercession for us. — Heb. ix, 2.5. 
 
 13. Son who shed his blood for us. — Heb. ix, 14. 
 
 14. The Lamb of God.— John i, 29. 
 
 15. The one to whom God gave the Revelation. — Rev. 
 
 i, 1. 
 
 16. To whom God gave all power. — Matt, xxviii, 18. 
 
 17. Who came down from heaven, not to do his own 
 
 will. — John vi, 33. 
 
 18. Sought not his own glory. 
 
 19. Abode all night in prayer to God. 
 
 20. Cried, My God, why hast thou foi-saken me. — Matt. 
 
 xxvii. 46. 
 
 21. Did all his works in his Fathers name. — Jno. x, 21. 
 
 22. The Prince of life, who was killed. — Acts iii, 15. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 13T 
 
 23. The Word that was with God.— John i, 1. 
 
 24. The Word that was made flesh. — Yei-se 14. 
 
 25. Who lived bj the Father.— John v, 26. 
 
 26. Now lives by the power of God. — 2 Cor. xiii, 4. 
 
 27. Has not the disposal of places at his right hand. 
 
 Matt. XX, 21. 
 
 28. Was strengthened by an angel in the garden. 
 
 Luke xxii, 43. 
 
 29. Is the brightness of God's glory. — Heb. i, 2. 
 
 30. And the express image of his person. — Heb. i, 3. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Xinth reply : 
 
 I am deeply interested in the brother this morning, in 
 view of the past, that in his language, he has so completely 
 reversed the usual order of things. I had hoped that in 
 the conducting of this discussion, the simple, manly, 
 honorable, argumentative course, would have been pur- 
 sued. I had hardly expected, from the reputation of my 
 distinguished brother, that he would find it convenient, 
 in violation of the rules of order, to descend to personal- 
 ities, in Billingsgate. I regret this, for the reputation 
 of my brother, but since he has chosen the jolly way, I 
 may be with him occasionally. The truth, in my hands, 
 shall not be allowed to suffer, simply because an oppo- 
 nent may descend from that high stand that ought to 
 be occupied, in a debate of this character. He set out 
 with the complaint, that he wishes you to notice parti- 
 cularly, that his opponent has, invariably, shunned his 
 arguments, and failed to answer the texts of Scripture 
 which he quoted. He then makes a great ado about my 
 selections of authors. He as much as intimates that I 
 am a stranger to religious authorities ; this is a great 
 assumption, and something I would not have said of 
 him. I accidentally misnamed an author, in consequence 
 of taking up a book, the appearance of which was strange 
 to me, and the brother makes great capital of this, and 
 states that I am entitled to credit for four things, among 
 them is irreverence for the divine attributes. Here I am 
 12 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 gravely charged with treating irreverently, the attributes 
 of the supreme Jehovah. Heaven and earth are wit- 
 nesses that I never felt the slightest irreverence, in 
 dwelling on the subject he regards with so much impor- 
 tance. With this, I leave the charge for honest men to 
 decide. He says the spirit of skepticism is manifested 
 in me. I will simply reply that every grade of skepti- 
 cism, sympathizes more with the views of my opponent. 
 The atheist denies the Deity of Jesus Christ ; the deist 
 denies the Divinit)^ of Jesus Christ ; one of their authors 
 says that the Christians have deified humanity. We 
 deify only the true Jehovah ; all other grades of skepti- 
 cism sympathize, more or less, with my good brother. 
 And should he select Hindoos, Chinese, or any other 
 portion within the world, and associate me with their 
 views, I am sure I will be willing, so far as their views 
 are correct, to endure the affliction. 
 
 He says I am entitled to credit for the amount of wind 
 I have expended, and then he seems to express the 
 idea, that I became overmuch affected, when talking 
 about the subject of Jordan. My good brother made 
 a speech, about which I will not say it was whin- 
 ing, but there certainly seemed to be crying without 
 tears, and I requested my brother not to indulge in such 
 a paroxysm again. As regards my voice, I have some- 
 what of a stentorian one. If I lifted it, being inspired 
 with the great truths I was uttering, and it became 
 afflictive to my brother, because it might find a lodgment 
 in honest hearts, if from this he regards it unfavorably, 
 I am sorry. Nothing, he says, had affected tlie great 
 truths which he represented here, not even the floods of 
 old. It is a rare circumstance to see a flood on diy 
 land ; and I suppose the presence of a flood has been the 
 subject of some interest to my brother, though I may not 
 have lifted the flood-gates, yet the brother, however, 
 seems to desire the privilege of a bath. 
 
 I have been thinking of my good brother Summerbell. 
 I do not know whether his bell jingles in the winter ; it 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 139 
 
 seems it is but a Suramerbell. He has made his appear- 
 ance among us here to rattle his bells. Now bells, when 
 sound, are clear and distinct, but when they become un- 
 sound, they give an uncertain sound ; and if so, who can 
 prepare himself for the battle. He now desires to know, 
 whether I will worship the human nature of Christ, and 
 though this inquiry should be made for the nine thou- 
 sand, nine hundred and ninety-ninth time, I will answer 
 him again, as I have done before. He thinks if I would^ 
 an Indian boy would stagger at the idea. I, and all the 
 orthodox Christians, give to Jesus Christ but one person, 
 and he has that one person — and he has that one person 
 and identity in heaven. That he was the Word, or Logos ; 
 that he was made flesh, and came and dwelt among us ; 
 that he was the brightness of his Father's glory, and 
 upheld all things by the word of his power." At the 
 shrine of this God we worship ; hence, I worship Jesus 
 Christ as God, and not as a creature, as my brother 
 does. I worship him as God, possessing the attributes 
 of the supreme Jehovah, and hence, he is entitled to my 
 adoration. The brother quotes: " I am God, and beside 
 me there is no God." I quote : " I am God, and beside 
 me there is no Saviour." There is but one God in the 
 universe, the supreme Being, and true God ; that God 
 consists of three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 and these three are One. For in Jesus Christ dwelleth 
 all the fullness of the Godhead bodily ; and hence it is 
 evident, that as there is but one God, that he consists of 
 three persons, equal in substance, glory, and eternity. 
 Now, if there is no Saviour beside this one God, and 
 Jesus Christ be a separate and distinct being from the 
 Father ; Jesus Christ is no Saviour. This is a fair con- 
 clusion ; and if he is no Saviour, then my brother is here 
 to-day without a Saviour ; but I hope better things for 
 him, for I hope to meet him in heaven. He arrives at 
 the conclusion, that the Methodists in England are con- 
 nected with the established church. I said, and I repeat, 
 that they are as remotely connected, as far as all organ- 
 
140 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 ization is concerned, as any two churches that exist in 
 this countiy. They may have some forms of worship 
 and discipline, that may agree with the Episcopal church, 
 just as in my brother's church, which he calls the Chris- 
 tian church, there are forms the same as those of other 
 denominations that existed before they were thought of. 
 For this Christian church, as it is called, dates back, 
 perhaps, half a centuiy. 
 
 Xow here, with reference to the word Christian, I pre- 
 sume that the term was received by the Christians, in the 
 same way that the Methodists were first called Method- 
 ists. The Christians were first so called at Antioch ; but 
 there was a church before that time at Jerusalem, but 
 they came to be distinct, as Christians, at Antioch, and 
 there can be little doubt that it was given as an epithet of 
 reproach to the followers of Christ. The Methodists 
 received their designation, as a body of disciples, at 
 Oxford, one hundred and forU' years ago, when they met 
 for the purpose of worship. It had been previously given 
 to a body by the Romish church, but Mr. Wesley con- 
 sented to be*^ called Methodist, by the world, though it 
 was regarded as a term of reproach, upon the principle, 
 to be counted anything, or nothing, for Jesus* sake. The 
 brother says, he would like to have his opponent to hloio 
 and strike for him. I would not express so mean an 
 opinion, that 1 would take him into apprenticeship. 1 
 am not disposed to treat a Gospel minister in so light a 
 manner, as though it were a trade or profession. I 
 regard it as a high calling of God, in Christ Jesus ; 
 hence, however desirable it may be, to have my good 
 brother with me, to labor in the cause of Christ, I could 
 not presume to scornfully treat him as an apprentice boy, 
 whose first exercises were those of blowing and striking. 
 He inquires again, respecting the sacrifice of Christ's 
 human nature. I assume that Jesus Christ sufi:ered upon 
 the altar of Divinity, a sacrifice, a perfect human nature ; 
 that the Divinity could not do this, and that the human 
 nature was associated with it, that it might die, and it 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 141 
 
 became indispensable to the Word, or Logos, to be identi- 
 fied with the humanity. How this is sustained, I never 
 presume to explain. He asserts the existence of two 
 natures, but only one person — by the orthodox he is 
 worshiped as God, possessing all the attributes of the 
 Divine mind. He thinks, however, that if omnipotence 
 passed over to the humanity, then my God would have 
 been annihilated. It has nowhere been asserted, that 
 omnipotence did pass over to humanity, but that Jesus 
 Christ, as the second person in the Trinity, did possess 
 all power, majesty, and glory. " All power," he says, 
 " is given into my hands." I shall notice again, the 
 clearly logical conclusion and Scriptural testimony, in 
 favor of the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence 
 of Jesus Christ ; the essential attributes of the Divine 
 mind center in him. I have never said that his human 
 nature itself, separated from the Divinity, possessed these 
 attributes. Hence my brother cavils at his own work. He 
 asserts that his brother is ignorant of the knowledge of 
 God, and I speak this to his shame. Exceedingly cour- 
 teous, this. I think him very respectful ! It is generally 
 thought, that even little boys at school, are discouraged 
 by being charged with ignorance. I would not take the 
 liberty with a school-boy. But my brother takes the 
 liberty of arraigning his opponent, and saying, " My 
 brother is ignorant of the knowledge of God." 
 
 For the present, my brother, I will not retort upon 
 you. He must have been very much disquieted during 
 the night. He has possibly spent a sleepless night, on a 
 thorny couch, arising from the failure of the arguments 
 he presented, and he is thus so discouraged, that he is 
 obliged to bellow out those things. He seeks to enlighten 
 me, by referring me to a Hindoo author. He did not, as 
 a wise servant of God, take up the Scripture oracles, as 
 1 have been laboring to do. 
 
 What is the character of his Christ, and his Saviour ? 
 and what relation does he sustain to God ? and what 
 kindredship to humanity ? This point, my good brother 
 
142 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 has very carefully avoided. But he tells what a Hindoo 
 author has to talk about, and drives off from the land of 
 Bibles, and Christian churches, to enlighten his poor, 
 besotted, ignorant brother, about the Hindoo creed. Now 
 he desires me to pay some attention to his texts of Scrip- 
 ture. John V, 26, " For as the Father hath life in 
 himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in 
 himself." He requests that I should notice, and answer 
 this. I will try to do so. It is a text I have quoted 
 several times ; I am sorry my brother has forgotten it. 
 " I have power to lay my life down, and I have power to 
 take it again." "No man," Christ said, " taketh my 
 life from me." I understand by this, that Christ has 
 omnipotent power to sit in his humanity, or Divinity. 
 We never had but one person. I have power, says 
 Christ. He is careful to know which nature makes this 
 assertion. I hold that there is but one Christ, and that 
 he has almighty power ; that he asserts this as God, and 
 could not assert it if he were not God. He quotes Heb. 
 ii, 9. " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower 
 than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with 
 glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should 
 taste death for Qvevy man." He desires I should explain 
 this passage: " he was made a little lower than the angels." 
 In his human nature ; not in his Divine nature. It could 
 not be in his Divine nature ; for were he equal, or infe- 
 rior, he could not have said, " Let all the angels of God 
 worship him." Hence this reference is doubtless to 
 the human nature, being made a little lower than the 
 angels. This accords with the language of the Psalmist 
 to the apostle — corroborates the same. That he was made 
 a little lower than the angels, does not indicate humilia- 
 tion in his Divine nature. He was infinitely above the 
 angels, and thereby entitled to their adoration and wor- 
 ship. " Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became 
 poor." In which of these natures did he become poor ? 
 Here my brother supposes he has met with a very serious 
 difficulty. We remark, that Jesus Christ, in his incarna 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 143 
 
 tion, disowned himself, voluntarilv, the riches and glory 
 of this world. He was the poorest of beings, as far as 
 earthly comfort was concerned. Ilis life was a life of 
 sacrifice, and of toil. He did not come as an heir of an 
 earthly estate, bnt was born of poor parents. He found 
 his first bed in the manger of a stable, and from this 
 appeared — throughout his entu*e life, he was depriyed of 
 the ordinary comforts that other men enjoy. Though 
 boundless riches were at his command, thrones, domin- 
 ions, principalities, and powei-s, all things were made by 
 him, and for him ; yet we find him for thirty-three years 
 extremely poor. "The foxes haye holes,'' said he, **and 
 the birds of the air haye nests ; but the Son of Man hath 
 not where to lay his head.'' I thank the one Hying and 
 true Gotl, that Jesus Christ did thus become poor, that 
 we, through his poverty, might be rich. 
 
 Mr Scmmekbell's Tenth address : 
 
 My brother poured a stream of personalities upon me, 
 which, of coui-se, he considered added greatly to the 
 force of his speech ; but it makes little difference to me, 
 so I defend my Sayiour — and such arguments are not 
 very conyinciug to intelligent people — yet they haye been 
 the most weighty ones offered in favor of creed-doctrines 
 for many years. 
 
 By irreverence to the divine attributes, I alluded to his 
 making one destroy another, and asserting that if God 
 gave all power to the Son, that he ceased to be God, &c. 
 He yet insists that all power was given to Christ. Very 
 well. He defines all power to be omnipotence; but he 
 thinks that it was not given to the humanity. Surely it 
 was not given to God the Son — to the divinity. Come, bro- 
 ther, explain. You thus make your logic destroy your 
 God. I am sorry for you — but cannot aid you except 
 by showing you a more excellent way. Because I read a 
 Hindoo author, who classed the idolatrous Hindoos all 
 on my brother's side, he seems to be much ti'oubled. I 
 do not know what he will do about it. He agrees with 
 
144 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITT. 
 
 Clarke, and Clarke, who acknowledges that the Trinity is 
 not revealed in the Old Testament, goes to the heathen 
 writings, and finds it recorded there, while it was 
 not revealed to the Jews. Let me read Clarke on 
 John i. 
 
 "Testimonies concerning the personality, attribntes, 
 and influence of the "WORD of God taken from the Zend 
 Avesta, and other writings attributed to Zoroaster. ' Let 
 thy terrible WORD, which I pronounce. O Ormusd ! ele- 
 vate itself on high. May it be great before thee and sat- 
 isfy my desires.' Zoroaster consulted Ormusd, and spoke 
 thus to him : ' O Ormusd, absorbed in excellence, just 
 judge of the world, pure, who existed by thy own power, 
 what is that great AYORD given by God — that living 
 and powerful WORD. O Ormusd, tell me plainly, who 
 existed before the heavens, before the waters, before the 
 earth, before the flocks, before the fire, the child of Or- 
 musd, before men, before the whole race of existing be- 
 ings, before all the benefits, and before all the pure germs 
 given by Ormusd V 
 
 Again I will read Clarke on Luke i : 
 
 " BRAHMA ; the Deity in his creative quality. 
 
 YISHXOO ; he who filleth all space ; the Deity in 
 his preserving quality. 
 
 MAHESA ; the Deity in his destroying quality." 
 
 "This,-' says Clarke, "is properly the "Hindoo Trin- 
 ity: for these three names belong to the same being." 
 
 Thus you see, by the testimony of their own authority, 
 the Trinity existed among the heathen, and was plainly 
 set forth in their writings, while yet there was not a word 
 of it in the Bible. By turning to the Chinese, we find 
 also, the Trinity among them. 
 
 ^ I will read '•again from Clarke: "Testimonies con- 
 cerning a Trinity among the Chinese, and concerning 
 the word of God. 
 
 "Among the ancient Chinese characters which have 
 been preserved, we find the following (A), like the Greek 
 delta, and since written (H). According to the Chinese 
 
DISCUSSION OS THE TRDsITT. 
 
 145 
 
 dictionary, Kanp:hi, this character signifies union. Ac- 
 cording to Choue-ouen, a celebrated work, A is three 
 united in one. The Lieou chou tsing hoen, which is a 
 rationiil and learned explanation of ancient characters, 
 says, 'a signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good 
 of man, of the heaven and of the earth, 'tis the union of 
 three.' " 
 
 My brother charged me with atheistical tendencies. I 
 do not wish to retort — but all can see that although his 
 doctrine is not in the Bible, it existed among the heathen 
 long before it did in the church, according to their best 
 authorities. 
 
 Let me read you the more Christian views of Philo Ju- 
 deas, on the "Woed : " The Wo^ by which the world was 
 made, is the image of the supreme Deity, as we perceive 
 the sun's light though the sun itself, is not seen — and 
 behold the brightness of the moon, though its orb may 
 not appear to the eye ; so men look up to, and acknow- 
 ledge the likeness of God in his minister, the Logos, 
 whom they esteem as God." He attempts to describe 
 his nature by representing him as not uncreated like God, 
 nor yet created as man, but of a divine substance. For 
 the Word of God, which is above all the host of heaven, 
 cannot be comprehended by human wisdom; having 
 nothing in his nature that is perceptible to mortal sense. 
 For being the image pf God, and the oldest of all intelli- 
 gent beings, he is seated immediately next to the one 
 God, without any interval of separation. This, in the 
 language of Scripture, ' is sitting on the right hand of 
 God.' " He adds, " For not being liable to any volun- 
 taiy or involuntary change or falling off, he has God for 
 his lot and portion, and his residence is in God." The 
 like is mentioned in another place, where he is repre- 
 sented as sinless, and as the great High-priest of the 
 world. We maintain that by the (true) High-priest, is 
 not meant a man, but the divine Word, who'is free from 
 all voluntary and involuntary transgi-essions, being of 
 heavenly parentage, born of God and of that divine wis- 
 13 
 
14:3 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 \ 
 
 dom, by which all things were produced. He speaks to 
 the same purpose in another place, wliere he makes men- 
 tion of the "Word." — Clarke, on John i. 
 
 He gave a very witty exposition of my name; all very 
 well in its place, but quite out of place here. 
 
 With respect to worshiping the human nature of 
 Christ, my brother is yet in difficulty. They say, that he 
 was "very God and very man," and these are united 
 never to be divided. Xow, if they do not divide them 
 in their worship, but as he says, they worship Christ as 
 God, does he not worship the very mmi as God '{ and, 
 hence he is, according to his own showing, an idolater. I 
 do not say this of myself, but according to his own exposi- 
 tion, he worships Christ as a whole Christ in one person, 
 very God and very man, with human soul and a physical 
 body. This makes him worship four persons. For God 
 is three persons, and a very man with human soul and 
 body, and all things pertaining to man's nature is an- 
 other person, and that makes four persons. Is this in 
 accordance with the Bible ? And yet he anathematizes 
 his brother. My brother quotes from the Old Testament, 
 "I am God, and beside me there is no Saviour," and 
 concludes, if there be no Saviour but this God, and Jesus 
 be a separate heing from the Eather, then he is no Savi- 
 our. Why does he not say a distinct j9f ^ He be- 
 lieves that he is, and the text says, beside "772^," i. e., 
 only one person. So that my brother turns Jew, and 
 denies Christ. Let me ask. Is my brother's " very man " 
 a Saviour, or is the man, that God ? The true explana- 
 tion of the text is this, that this was written before Christ 
 was sent to be a Saviour ; still, Christ is not a Saviour 
 'beside^ or independent of God, but God saves us by his 
 Son. My brother next speaks of the Christian name, as 
 though it were some sectarian name, like Methodist ; but 
 Clarke gives up, that the name Christian, was given by 
 divine appointment ; and my brother will not deny his 
 own authority, though he denies the Christian name. 
 
 He says, that he has nowhere asserted, that omnipo- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 14T 
 
 tence passed over to the human nature. Indeed ! My 
 brother's way is not only novel ^ but veiy crooked. 
 
 I appeal to you, whether you have not heard that ar- 
 gument here ? But to whom, or what, then, was all 
 power given ? Not to the divinity, surely ? He says, 
 that the Son was the second person in the Trinity ; but 
 the other day, he denied that the Son was eternal, only 
 claiming eternity for the Logos. He now says, that the 
 Son received all power ; but will not this annihilate the 
 two other persons, according to his former argument? 
 He only shifts the difficulty, but does not get rid of it. 
 If all power be given, it must be given to God or man ; 
 which was it ? He complains that I do not give the 
 Bible as my authority ; yet in the next breath, says, I will 
 now answer some of his texts,'- but then complains, that 
 he '*has not time to answer them all.'' That is, / do 
 not quote Bible authority, yet he has not time to answer 
 all the texts I quote from the Bible. He again refers to 
 the text, " I have power to lay down my life." I ask, 
 Has God power to lay down his life ? My brother con- 
 tends that he has not, and yet quotes the text to prove 
 that he has I You see, my brother believes that he has. 
 Do not thousands believe it ? 
 
 ■ Let me read you a few extracts from their best authors, 
 and see what Trinitarians say: "God, the mighty Makek, 
 died for man, the creature's sin." — Dr. Watts. The 
 very heart of God bleeding, and the sole author of life 
 expiring." — Dr. Barroic. " He, the Christian believes 
 him to have been a weak child, and carried in arms, who 
 is the Almighty, and him once to have died, who only 
 hath life and immortality in himself." — Lord Bacon. 
 
 Dr. South speaks of him : "Who created, and at pres- 
 ent governs, and shall hereafter judge the world ;" as 
 being " abused in all his concerns and relations, spit 
 upon, mocked, and at last crucified." "Hereby perceive 
 we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." 
 Jno. i, 16. Though there is nothing, in the Greek, cor- 
 responding to the word God in this passage, yet, as it 
 
148 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 was inserted by the English translators, who were Trini- 
 tarians, I see not how it can be objected to as evidence 
 in this case, as proving that they believe that God died. 
 
 Machiight says : " It need not surprise us that Christ 
 in the flesh is called ' God over all blessed forever, since 
 God hath highly exalted him ' in the human nature, ' and 
 given him a name above every name,' Phil, ii, 29 ; ' and 
 hath put all things under his feet,' 1 Cor. xv, 27 ; ' and 
 will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom 
 he hath ordained.' " Acts xvii, 31. 
 
 He complains that my bell gives such an uncertain 
 sound, that he cannot prepare for the battle. I think 
 that he understands the sound, however, and that this is 
 the reason why he cannot prepare for the battle. He 
 thinks that at his incarnation Christ divested himself of 
 his glorj^, and became poor — what Christ ? not the 
 human infant surely, but the Divinity. He says that 
 "he was very poor for thirty-three years!" That is, 
 God was very poor thirty-three years ! for such is the 
 only rational construction of his words. Let that pass. 
 Try it again, my brother. It will hardly do to say that 
 the unchangeable God was very poor for thirty -three 
 years ! Tliat the God, without a body, had not where 
 to lay his head. 
 
 He says on Heb. ii, 9, that it was the human nature 
 that was made a little lower than the angels. This will 
 not do, for that always was lower, and needed not to be 
 made lower. " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he 
 became poor." This could not be the unchangeable God, 
 for he never became poor, nor the human nature, for that 
 had never been rich ! It is true of the Son of God, and 
 is good Christian doctrine ; but these texts are capable 
 of no explanation, according to their system. It will 
 not do to say that God became poor, and was made a 
 little low^er than tlie angels. 
 
 I will now present my brother w^ith another list of 
 arguments and texts upon this subject. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 149 
 
 1. According to their system, Jesus was that Father 
 who sent him. 
 
 2. That God who gave him. 
 
 3. The God whom he prayed to. 
 
 4. That God he came cfUt from. 
 
 5. They believe that he is the God who begat him. 
 
 6. And the God who sent him. 
 
 7. They believe that when he prayed, he prayed to 
 himself. 
 
 8. That he thanked himself, and sent himself, and 
 glorified himself. 
 
 9. That he bore witness of himself. 
 
 10. Came out from himself, and went back to himself. 
 
 11. They believe that he sits at his own right hand. 
 
 12. Is his own Father and his own Son. 
 
 13. That as our advocate, he pleads with himself. 
 
 14. As our intercessor, he prays to his divine nature. 
 
 15. As our sacrifice, he is offered to his divine nature. 
 
 16. As our atonement, he pays his divine nature. 
 
 17. As our Mediator, he stands between us and his 
 divine nature. 
 
 18. Sits down at the right hand of his divine nature. 
 
 19. Is ignorant of what his omniscient nature knows. 
 
 20. Cannot do what his omnipotent nature does. 
 
 21. Was glad he was not where his omnipresent nature 
 was. 
 
 22. That he left heaven, but remained there at the 
 same time. 
 
 Now, if my brother can make this congregation 
 swallow all these contradictions, I am much mistaken. 
 
 Thirty texts containing the words of Jesus, which are 
 plainly contradicted by the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 1. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will. 
 John vi, 38. Yes, your own will, they reply. 
 
 2. I must be about my Father's l3usiness. Luke ii, 49. 
 Ko, it 's your own business. 
 
 3. All things are delivered unto me of my Father, 
 Matt. X, 34. You always had all things. 
 
150 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 4. Luke xi, 20, If I with the finger of God cast out 
 devils. No, 3^ou do it by yourself. 
 
 5. N'o man hath ascended up into heaven, but the Son 
 of man, which is in heaven. John iii, 13. No, not the 
 Son of man, but the divine nature. 
 
 6. God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son. John iii, 16. No, he came himself. 
 
 7. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me. 
 John iii, 34. No, but your own will. 
 
 8. The Son can do nothing of himself. John v, 19. 
 Yes, he can do all things of himself. 
 
 9. The Father hath given the Son to have life in 
 himself. John v, 23. The Son is self-existent with the 
 Father. 
 
 10. I can of mine own self do nothing. John v, 30. 
 He can of his own self do all things. 
 
 11. I am come in my Father's name. John vii, 43. 
 No, in his own name. 
 
 12. My doctrine is not mine. John vii, 16. Yes it 
 is his. 
 
 13. If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
 the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak 
 of myself John vii, 17. He speaks of himself, when 
 he speaks of God. 
 
 14. I am not come of myself. John vii, 28. They 
 say that he did come of himself. 
 
 15. I go to him that sent me. John vii, 33. They 
 don't believe that he came out from God. 
 
 16. I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath 
 taught me, I speak these things. John viii, 28. He 
 can do all things of himself, say they. 
 
 17. I speak that which I have seen with my Father. 
 John viii, 38. 
 
 18. The truth which I have heard of God. John 
 viii, 40. 
 
 19. I proceeded forth and came from God, neither 
 came I of myself, but he sent me. John viii, 42. 
 
 20. I seek not mine own glory. John viii, 50. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITT. 
 
 151 
 
 21. If I honor myself, my honor is nothing ; it is the 
 Father that honoreth me, of whom ye say, that he is 
 your God. John viii, 54. Here Jesus clearly distin- 
 guishes between God and himself. 
 
 22. I have power to lay down my life, and I have 
 power to take it again. This commandment have I re- 
 ceived of my Father. John x, 18. 
 
 23. I said I am the S(y)i of God. John x, 36. No, 
 the Jews understood him to make himself God, and they 
 were right, says my brother. 
 
 24. I have not spoken of myself, but the Father gave 
 me a commandment, what I should say. John xii, 49. 
 
 25. Even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. 
 John xii, 50. 
 
 26. I will pray the Father. John xiv, 16. 
 
 27. Of that day knoweth no man — no not the angels, 
 neither the Son, but the Father only. Mark xiii, 32 ; 
 Matt, xxiv, 36. 
 
 28. All power is given unto me. Matt, xxviii, 18. 
 No, " we will not trust in delegated power," say they. 
 
 29. Father, this is life eternal, that they might know 
 thee, the only trae God. John xvii, 1-3. No, the Son 
 and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God, as the 
 Father. 
 
 30. I ascend to my Father, and to your Father, to my 
 God, and to your God. John xxi, 17. 
 
 I want my brother to explain to us how he can be de- 
 fending Methodism, while he is at one time renouncing 
 one part of it, and at another time another part ! I am 
 willing to admit, that he possesses wit — a good degree of 
 knowledge, and considerable power, and that he is capa- 
 ble of bringing forward all those proof-texts generally 
 relied upon ; and in short, that he could defend the doc- 
 trine, if it could be defended ; but it cannot. It cannot 
 be found in the Bible, and how can it be defended by it? 
 He has already given up a goodly portion of his creed, 
 and I want him to acknowledge it. Tell the congrega- 
 tion, brother, whether you have not given it up. Have 
 
152 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TKIXITY. 
 
 you not given np Art. first, which says, that God has 
 
 no body ? Have you not given up Art. second, which 
 
 says, that the two natures were never to be separated ? 
 
 Have you not given up that the Son, the second person 
 
 in the Trinity, w as not eternal ? 
 
 I will now present you a number of texts, showing the 
 
 promises, blessings, and the virtue of the Christian's faith 
 
 in the Son of God. 
 
 Jesus said, Matt. xvi. 15, '* Whom say ye that I am V 
 Peter answered, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 
 living God !*' 
 
 Jems replied, " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for 
 flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee ; but my 
 Father which is in heaven." 
 
 But no blessing is pronounced for believing the 
 Trinity I 
 
 John XX, 30. Many other signs truly did Jesus in 
 the presence of his disciples, which are not written in 
 this book ; but these are written, that ye might believe 
 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that be- 
 lieving ye might have life in his name.*' Bat no books 
 are written that we might believe the Trinity. 
 
 The Eunuch inquired. Acts viii, 36, ''What doth 
 hinder me to be baptized 
 
 Philip said, "If thou believest with all thy heart, 
 thou mayest." 
 
 The Eunuch replied, '*! believe that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God ; and he baptized him."' But no one was 
 baptized on the profession of faith in the Trinity. 
 
 Acts ix, 20. Paul preached Christ in the synagogues, 
 that he is the Son of God. But no one preached the 
 Trinity in those days. 
 
 1 John iv, 15. ""Whosoever shall confess that Jesus 
 is the Son of God. God dwelleth in him and he in God." 
 But there is no promise for confessing the Trinity. 
 
 1 John V, 4. '• This is the victory that overcometh 
 the world, even our faith : who is he that overcometh 
 the world : but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 153 
 
 of God." But there is no promise for believing the 
 Trinity. 
 
 1 John V, 9. " If we receive the witness of men, the 
 witness of God is greater : for this is the witness of God 
 which he hath testified of his Son." But God never 
 beai's witness to the Trinity. 
 
 1 John v, 10. ''He that believeth in the Son of God 
 hath the witness in himself." But he that believeth the 
 Trinity must look to his creed. 
 
 1 John V, 10. He that believeth not God hath 
 made him a liar: because he believeth not the record 
 that God gave of his Son." But no person is thus de- 
 nounced for disbelieving the Trinity. 
 
 1 John V, 11. "God hath given us eternal life ; and 
 this life is in his Son." But the Bible never says that 
 it is in the Trinity. 
 
 1 John V,. 12. "He that hath the Son hath life." 
 But it is nowhere said, that he that hath the Trinity hath 
 life. 
 
 1 John V, 12. " He that hath not the Son hath not 
 life." But it is nowhere said, that he that hath not the 
 Trinity hath not life. 
 
 1 John V, 13. " These things have I written unto you 
 that believe on the name of the Son of God." But no- 
 thing is written to them that believe the Trinity. 
 
 1 John V, 13. "That ye may know that ye have 
 eternal life." But nowhere does it say, that he that 
 believeth the Trinity hath eternal life. 
 
 1 John V, 13. "And that ye may believe on the 
 name of the Son of God." But nowhere does he write, 
 that we may believe the Trinity. 
 
 1 John ii, 33. " Whoever denieth the Son, the same 
 hath not the Father." But there is no such danger in 
 denying the Trinity. 
 
 1 John ii, 23. "He that acknowledgeth the Son, 
 hath the Father also." So that Christians have both ; 
 but they who deny the Son have neither. 
 
 1 John iii, 23. " This is His commandment, that we 
 
154 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 should believe on the name of His Son Jesns Christ." 
 But there is no commanchnent to believe the Trinity. 
 
 2 Peter i, 17. God said^ " This is my beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleased." But he never said, this is 
 myself in whom I am well pleased. 
 
 O, that Trinitarians would believe the truth, that they 
 might claim these blessings. 
 
 Here is the highest authority to prove that the Trinity 
 is not a fundamental doctrine of the Bible, but is a con- 
 clusion to which some have come from premises growing 
 out of other things. Says Neander : 
 
 "We now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken 
 in its connection with the proper and fundamental essence 
 of Christianity, or with the doctrine of redemption, finds 
 its ultimate completion, the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 This doctrine does not strictly belong to the fundamental 
 articles of the Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evi- 
 dent from the fact, that it is expressly held forth in no 
 one particular passage of the New Testament ; for the 
 only one in which this is done, the passage relating to 
 the three that bear record, John i, 5, is undoubtedly spu- 
 rious, and in its ungenuine shape testifies to the fact, how 
 foreign such a collocation is from the style of the New 
 Testament scriptures. AVe find in the New Testament 
 no other fundamental argument beside that of w^hich the 
 Apostle Paul says, that other foundation can no man lay, 
 than that is laid — the annunciation of Jesus as the Mes- 
 siah ; and Christ himself designates, as the foundation 
 of his religion, faith in the only true God, and in Jesus 
 Christ whom he hath sent. John xvii, 3. What Paul 
 styles distinctively the mystery, relates, in no one in- 
 stance, to what belongs to the hidden depths of the Divine 
 Essence, but to the divine purpose of salvation, which 
 found its accomplishment in a fact." Neander., i, 572. 
 
 It is professedly made up of a text here and a text 
 there — one taken from one place and one from another ; 
 and not one of them saying anything about it. If the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible, let my brother 
 
DISCTTSSI03T ON THE TRINITT. 
 
 155 
 
 find it there and show it to us, and the controversy will 
 be ended. I want you especially to mark the course of 
 my brother in defending his Articles of Religion. 
 
 "^He says that God has body, and consequently, Art. 
 Ist, which says He has not a body, is not true. All the 
 while that he is speaking in defense of his creed, he is 
 giving up first one part and then another. Why does 
 he not renounce it altogether, and take the Apostolic 
 creed, the Bible ? 
 
 But his views on the Son of God are very question- 
 able. O, deny not the Son of God, my brother ! We 
 need that precious Mediator — we need thxit person who 
 came out from God, and went back to God, to stand 
 between God and man as our mediator — as a medium 
 between the Great Creator, the Eternal One, and the 
 creature, poor, finite man. We need that one who, 
 when no man was found able to open the book, came 
 and took it out of the right hand of him that sat on the 
 throne; who, when dying, said, Father, forgive them, 
 they know not what they do ! Ilis system unites God 
 and man, veiy God and very man, without medium or 
 mediator ; and the Son of God is lost sight of. 
 
 I will now present my brother with some reasons for 
 rejecting the Trinity : 
 
 1. It pretends to understand God better than the 
 Bible. 
 
 2. It requires more than God requires. 
 
 3. It gives God an anti-Bible name. 
 
 4. It divides the supreme Being or Essence. 
 
 5. It makes one part of God inferior to another. 
 
 6. It numbers the persons or parts of God and their 
 relative dignity. 
 
 7. It gives one part of God properties which the 
 others do not possess. 
 
 8. It makes God to be three persons, whereas the Bible 
 says " God is one." 
 
 9. It makes Christ two persons, one very God and the 
 other very man, with two spirits, two natures, two minds. 
 
156 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 10. It ascribes all the merits and sufferiDgs of Christ 
 to human nature. 
 
 .11. It makes the man, Christ Jesus, very man, like 
 the lowest Unitarians. 
 
 12. It has no Mediator between God and men, but a 
 man, like the lowest Unitarians. 
 
 13. It has no sacrifice but a man, like the lowest Unita- 
 rians. 
 
 14. It worships only part of Christ, and makes it 
 idolatry to w^orship all of Christ. 
 
 15. It makes it idolatry to worship the man Jesus. 
 
 16. It makes it idolatry to worship the Lamb that was 
 slain, whom angels worship. 
 
 17. It makes no difiereuce between truth and error, 
 but sanctifies the grossest contradictions. 
 
 18. It destroys the doctrine of a Son of God. 
 
 19. It is repugnant to Christianity in giving God an 
 equal. 
 
 20. Its names and phrases, by which it worships God, 
 difier from those used by angels, prophets, the Son of 
 God, or the apostles: instance Trinity, Triune, Holy 
 Trinity, Three One, Jehovah-Jesus, God Man, second 
 person in the Trinity, Holy Three, God the Son, God the 
 Holy Gliost, two Natures, Human I^ature of Jesus. 
 
 21. It makes two Jesuses, one a God who did not 
 sufier for us, did not bleed for us, did not pray for us, 
 was not seen, is not our mediator, is not our sacrifice, 
 did not die for us, did not redeem us, nor rise for us, nor 
 plead for us — and him they wwship ; wdiile the other 
 Jesus, that they say is ve7y maii^ sufiered for us, bled for 
 us, bought us, prayed for us, was seen by us, is our Me- 
 diator, our sacrifice, died for us, rose for us, pleads for 
 us, was wounded for us, and redeemed us — him they will 
 not worship, and condemn us as idolaters for worshiping 
 the Son of God. 
 
 Oh, my brother, this doctrine of the Son of God is a 
 glorious and blessed doctrine. Do not use your talents 
 and power against it, for you cannot overthrow it. It is 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 157 
 
 the rock upon which the Church is founded. It stands, 
 and must for ever stand. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Tenth reply : 
 
 I am much pleased with the improvement in the spirit 
 manifested by my brother. No chastisement for the pre- 
 sent is joyous, but rather grievous ; but afterward it may 
 yield positive fruits of righteousness to them that are 
 exercised thereby. The brother starts out by quoting 
 Clarke, and says that Clarke quotes a heathen author to 
 prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Clarke, in his Notes 
 on 1 John, shows how this word was in use among 
 some ancient heathens before the time of Christ. My 
 friend says Clarke was pressed to this of necessity. 
 Whoever vs^ill turn their attention to the use he makes 
 of it, will see the justice my brother has done the au- 
 thor. He wishes to know, if human nature is in the 
 person of Jesus Christ. It is strange my brother will 
 not comprehend my explanation on this subject. I en- 
 deavored, in a previous explanation, to show him that 
 Jesus Christ was God and man, in one person, and of 
 Christ that human nature was identified with divine na- 
 ture, in the person of Jesus Christ. Then he asks the ques- 
 tion, if in worshiping Jesus Christ we do not w^orship the 
 humanity ? In connection with this, he also asserts that 
 we have no mediator between God and man. Now, it 
 was for this very purpose that he took upon him human 
 nature, that he might be a mediator, that he might be 
 united with the otiended and the ofiending. That he 
 should be united with God, it was necessary he should 
 possess divinity, having all the attributes and perfections 
 of divine nature ; and hence he is one with the Father, 
 in substance, power, glory, and eternity ; hence we wor- 
 ship Jesus Christ, and worship him as God ; we ap- 
 proach him as the medium, and worship him as the 
 Mediator — " No man cometti unto the Father but by 
 me," and this, I suppose, in the character of mediator. 
 Whenever this reference is made, he is spoken of in 
 
158 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 reference to his office as mediator in the everlasting 
 covenant, and becomes a mediator amply suited to meet 
 all the necessities of the case, both with reference to the 
 claims of God and the obligations of humanity. But 
 he states, on what authority 1 should like to know, that 
 I deny tlie Son of God was eternal. jSTow, I shall be 
 glad if my brother will point out the place, in the re- 
 porter's notes, where I have denied the eternity of the 
 Son of God ; that the Son of God is an eternal being as 
 God ; that he must be so, but is only designated as the 
 Son, in connection with his being begotten ; this is the 
 only point of difference. I hold, with Watson, that the 
 Son of God is eternal in his divine nature, but was 
 known in his divine nature prior to his being begotten 
 of the Father, as the Word, or Logos ; hence I do not 
 use the phrase, etei-nal Son of God ; but nevertheless, I 
 say that he who is the Son of God is an eternal being. 
 Any casual observer will see the point of difference: 
 Christ, in his divine nature, is eternal ; he existed before 
 all time, and prior to the birth of any beings, angelic or 
 human. This is implied in his language : " Before 
 Abram was I am.'' He was designated as the Word, or 
 Logos, which was with the Father, which became Flesh, 
 and is therefore properly designated the Son of God, in 
 the sense in which no angelic or human nature can be 
 called Son of God. The brother desired to have five 
 days' discussion on this proposition. I should have been 
 satisfied with less, and had he not repeated things of this 
 kind, he could have delivered himself of more matter than 
 he could in a month to come, if he acts upon the prin- 
 ciple that seems to have guided him hitherto. And he 
 quotes again, that " God, the mighty Maker, died." I 
 hope he will not think it hard if I refer him to the forty- 
 four stanzas repeating the same language in each. I 
 will now reply to his statement, that I have asserted that 
 God had no body, and then that he had ; that the hu- 
 manity and divine nature, says the Constitution, w^ere 
 never separated, and that I say, they were., 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 159 
 
 With regard to the separation of the humanity and 
 Divinity, the article must be understood to assert, that 
 no permanent separation would have taken place, and 
 appeared wholly based between the resurrection and 
 ascension, which, if not alluded to in the article, is uni- 
 versally believed. It was no permanent separation ; but 
 a very brief one, for the purpose of accomplishing the 
 work of redemption. As regards God having a body, 
 he possesses no corporal body, as the essential God. 
 But when he connected humanity with the Divine nature, 
 it was in a mysterious manner, that was non-essential to 
 his being as God, but essential to his efiecting man's 
 redemption. I am well aware of the meaning of this 
 war of words, and can not but regret its necessity ; but 
 my friend must not expect, by any play of words, to get 
 rid of the real question at issue. He goes on and quotes 
 a number of passages, to show that Jesus Christ could 
 not have been one with the Father ; that God could not 
 be the sender and the sent, the begetter and the begotten ; 
 that he prays to his Divine nature ; that he goes back to 
 himself, stands at his own right hand, &c. Now I shall 
 be glad if my brother will give us to understand what he 
 means by some of these phrases ; for instance, Jesus sat 
 at the right hand of the Father. Are we to understand 
 that God has a physical right hand, and that he occupies 
 a place somewhere in the universe, as a great God, and 
 that Jesus Christ is placed at the right hand of the great 
 Sovereign of the universe ? This language, I conceive, 
 is employed in the Scriptures, in reference to the connec- 
 tion subsisting between the Divinity and humanity. I 
 can not possibly conceive an infinite, incomprehensible 
 Jehovah, who exists from all eternity, absolutely inde- 
 pendent, who fills universal space, whose person is every- 
 where, that he can have any required position, and that 
 at his right hand, in the sense my brother supposes, is 
 Christ, as a being of inferior and delegated authority. 
 Now Stephen speaks of Jesus, as beholding him in this 
 position ; but until the brother explains what he under- 
 
160 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 I 
 
 stands by this, I will wave my answer, at least for tho 
 present. I will give it at its appropriate time, but I want 
 my brother to be a little definite, and state what he thinks 
 it means. He states that we do not believe in the 
 equality of the Son with the Father — that Jesus Christ 
 is one with God, Now he must conceive that his oppo- 
 nent, and Trinitarians generally, are the most dishonest 
 set of men that can possibly exist, if they preach these 
 articles of belief — proclaim them broadcast to the world — ■ 
 invite every quarter of the globe to embrace this true 
 essential equality of the Father with the Son, at the same 
 time they do not believe it themselves. Now if you can 
 reconcile these contradictions, I leave you to do it, my 
 brother, as a compliment to this audience, upon their 
 intelligence. I hope the audience will not receive many 
 assertions that have been presented by my opponent. I 
 am happy to be able to compliment this audience, on the 
 patience and intelligence they have throughout mani- 
 fested, and am quite willing to leave it to their discrimi- 
 nation, as to what is most worthy of their belief. I came 
 here with the full expectation, that a certain class of 
 minds would be fixed beforehand, in favor of their belief, 
 and would not be likely to be moved therefrom ; nor 
 had I any great hopes of making a convert of my brother. 
 But at the same time, I had hope in the conviction, that 
 truth is mighty and will prevail, and that this endless 
 clashing of words may find, at least, some means of set- 
 tlement and adjustment, by which religionists of all 
 parties may be united. If I can assist in the accomplish- 
 ment of this, I shall have done something for the interests 
 of my fellow-men. He triumphantly asks me to point out 
 the word Trinity, in the Bible. 1 stated the word Trinity 
 is not a Scriptural phrase ; that I had no tenacity for it, 
 simply as a word ; that I do not use it as a name for 
 Jehovah. We can not name Jehovah. There is perhaps 
 no word, that fully expresses all the essential character- 
 istics of the divine Being. But we use the term Trinity, 
 as a convenient phrase to illustrate the great Scripture 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 161 
 
 doctrine, which we find on record in the Bible ; that in 
 the unity of the Godhead there are three persons — Father, 
 Son, and Holj Ghost — constituting the one living and 
 true God, the God of creation, the God of salvation, and 
 the God of redemption. Hence, as we have but this one 
 living and true God, we use this term as significant of 
 our understanding of it. He asserts, again, that his 
 opponent is renouncing his creed. I suppose he alludes 
 to the proposition under discussion. I have informed 
 him, again and again, that I believe that the proposition 
 under discussion," presents the truth on this particular 
 point, I have been laboring to sustain. When he tells 
 his audience that his opponent sometimes says one thing, 
 and sometimes another, I appeal to my audience, if there 
 has not been an honest desire manifested for the truth, 
 notwithstanding any circumstances that might appear. 
 He gives me credit for wit. I am glad to notice this 
 improvement on the spirit of his former speech. If I 
 succeed in accomplishing anything, it is not owing, 
 perhaps, to any particular capacity that I possess, but 
 owing to the readiness of the material ; he allows, how- 
 ever, that if the doctrine I defend was capable of being 
 sustained, that his brother is capable of doing it. In a 
 former speech, he compared me to an apprentice boy ; 
 now, he fancies there is something in me, and that 
 I am capable of sustaining an argument, if it is ca- 
 pable of being sustained. He says we are safe, if we 
 have the Son of God dwelling in us. This is the very 
 doctrine we teach ; for we assume that the Son of God is 
 God, and the Son of God possesses all the essential 
 attributes of the Divine mind, and hence, he says. Rev. 
 iii, 20, Behold I stand at the door and knock ; if any 
 man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come into 
 him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Again, 
 he promises that he will come, and bring his Father 
 with him, and make his abode with them : " He that 
 hath the Son hath the Father ;" this is the point alluded 
 to in his address to Philip ; and hence he promises to 
 14 
 
162 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 come in and sup with the believers, and having this 
 communion with Christ, we have fellowship with the 
 Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ. I assume the 
 essential presence of Jesus Christ everywhere. He 
 hath promised believers, that w^here two or three are 
 gathered together, he will be in the midst of them. My 
 brother will have to explain, if Jesus Christ is not om- 
 nipotent, how it is, if every human being in the universe 
 were to open their hearts, how Christ would be able to 
 enter. It does not say that any man, in any one place, 
 nor a thousand places ; but says to any man, in Europe, 
 Asia, Africa, or America. My brother assumes that he 
 may be in many places, but not in all. With respect to 
 a personal Devil, I will not deny Satan, for his gratifica- 
 tion, for the present time. I hold that Satan, or the old 
 Devil, goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he 
 might devour. Now roaring lions are not found in but 
 one place at the same time ; but that Satan, and the 
 wicked spirits of wicked men, may be exerting an evil 
 influence in connection with the chief evil spirit, I will 
 not question this latter position ; but the presence of 
 Satan in more places than one, at the same time, is a 
 strange theolog}^, and I will not give it a place in my 
 creed. But Christ can be in more places than one, at the 
 same time — he may pervade the universe; be in heaven, 
 and on every part of the earth, at the same time. The 
 Son of man says, " he which is in heaven." Now, here 
 in this allusion, he claim.s for himself to have presence, 
 in some sense, in heaven, at the same time that he was 
 upon the earth ; therefore I assume, that wherever two 
 or more are gathered together, in his name, he is with 
 them to bless them. " If any man open, I will come in ; " 
 and hence, his vision and knowledge must take cogni- 
 zance of all things transpiring upon this earth ; he must 
 be omniscient as well as omnipresent, for his knowledge 
 must take cognizance of all his creatures ; hence, if two 
 or three agree upon the same thing, or a thousand differ- 
 ent things, all of which may be asked in his name, he is 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 163 
 
 able to give attention to the demands of all, of high or 
 of low, of rich or of poor, of great and of small, the 
 learned and the ignorant, the wise and the simple, and 
 all to trust in him, as their redeeming God, may have 
 confidence in his being able to take cognizance of their 
 wants, the propriety or impropriety of their wants, and 
 as Almighty, he is able to supply them ; and he assures 
 them that he will do it. These are a few of the collat- 
 eral evidences, which are presented in the "Word of God, 
 on the essential perfections of Jesus Christ, as God. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Eleventh address : 
 
 My friends, it has been asked by some, why it is that 
 I am on the affirmative, of a negative proposition ? The 
 only reason I can give is, that, after my coming here, this 
 was the only way in which my brother would agree to 
 discuss the subject. He now wants to know what / he- 
 lieve. My faith is not the subject in discussion, nor ara- 
 1 bound to present my doctrine. The question is simply 
 whether the Methodist doctrine is true. If my brother 
 wishes a debate on our doctrine, after we close the present 
 discussion, I shall be very willing to accommodate him. 
 
 My brother said, that 1 did not quote Clarke correctly. 
 I ask him, then, to read the paragraph himself, and show 
 wherein I was incorrect. The difficulty of my brother's 
 worship is still unexplained. I wanted to know whether 
 he worships all of his God, creature, and creator? body 
 and spirit? human and divine? or only part? He 
 acknowledges that his God now has a body — the body 
 of a very man — a creature. If, then, he worships all of 
 his God, he worships a creature, according to his own 
 theory. True, his creed says, that God has no body, but 
 he has given that up. He says that he worships Clirist 
 as God, but that does not help the difficulty, his Christ is 
 part man and part God ; so if he worships all of his 
 Christ as God, then he worships man, a creature, as God. 
 Come, my brother, explain this to us. I want him to 
 tell us if he rejects from his worship God's body, and 
 
164 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 that part of his Christ that suffered for him, was ciTicified 
 for him, died for him, and redeemed him ? He says that 
 Christ, human and divine, God and man, was but one 
 person. If so, and he worships all that person, then he 
 worships a creature. But, the other day he said that the 
 person begotten, was not the person that was with God 
 in the beginning. He attempted to show that he had a 
 mediator between God and man ; but in this he utterly 
 failed. He has a God-man; but can he find a mediator 
 between ? Now, if God is the mediator, he can not be 
 a mediator heticeen God and men — for he is God him- 
 self, one of the parties ; and if he takes the other horn 
 of the dilemma and says that man is the mediator, that 
 will not do, for man can not be a mediator between God 
 and man, since he is man — one of the parties. It will not 
 do, brother ; he must show us a mediator between God 
 and man, or acknowledge that he has none. Let us 
 read Clarke again, Luke i, 35 : — 
 
 "That human nature should be called the Son of the 
 most high God. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his 
 divine nature, then he can not be eternal ; for son im- 
 plies a father, and father implies, in reference to son, pre- 
 cedency in time, if not in nature too. The phrase. Eter- 
 nal Son, is a positive self-contradiction." Did I not tell 
 you that Clarke made the Father to be above the Son, 
 and superior to him ? but my brother denied it. Prece- 
 dency in time, if not in nature, says Clarke. That the 
 divine nature was equal with the Father will not explain 
 this; for Clarke says that "the angel does not give the 
 appellation of Son of God to the divine nature." Luke 
 i, 35 ; and that he knows of " no Scripture, fairly inter- 
 preted, that states the divine nature to be begotten of 
 God, or to be the Son of God." My brother exchanges 
 the Son of God, in his creed and in his doctrine, for the 
 Logos ; but that will not do. We want to know if he 
 believes in the Son of God ? 
 
 He admits now that the two natures were divided three 
 days and three nights. Yet the creed says, never to be 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 165 
 
 divided ; but that is also given up now. But if the two 
 natures were divided three days and three nights, con- 
 trary to his creed, how does he know that they never will 
 be divided again ? The question is, Whether his creed 
 (or Constitution and Discipline, and articles of religion,) 
 be true or false ? It says that God has no body. My 
 brother gives up that God now, has a body. It says that 
 the two natures of Christ were never to be divided. My 
 brother now, gives up that they were divided three days 
 and three nights. Well, if God has a body, as my 
 brother says, then his creed is false. Again ; if the two 
 natures were divided, as my brother says, then his creed 
 (Constitution and Discipline) is false. That they deny the 
 equality of the Son with the Father is evident, for they 
 say that the Son is very man — human nature — that eter- 
 nal Son is not correct. They make the Son die to recon- 
 cile his Father to us. This is not making them equal. 
 They say that the Son is a mediator between God and 
 us — not between God and man, for the Son is man, they 
 say. This, then, does not make them equal. They 
 make the Son a sacrifice — to die for us — to pay the 
 debt. This does not make them equal. Clarke says, 
 that " although Christ is of the same essence of the 
 Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father, as 
 tlie splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is 
 distinct from the sun itself." Heb. i, 3. Now, if they 
 did not believe that the Son is inferior to the Father, 
 could they use this comparison ? For the splendor of 
 the sun is dependent, for its existence, upon the sun from 
 which it emanates. My brother, after asserting that two 
 infinites could not exist, or inhabit the same space, has 
 not explained to us how three infinite persons can exist 
 in the same space. Lot him not Ibrget this. Neither 
 has he told us how two persons in the Trinity could give 
 all their power over to a third, and not cease to exist ; 
 though, alter saying that if God did give all power in 
 heaven and eartii to Christ, that God must cease to exist; 
 he did say that both the Father and the Holy Ghost gave 
 all power to the Sou. Explain brother ! My brother 
 
166 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 threatens to " take off his gloves," and take hold of the 
 subject in earnest. He says that he will " open the flood- 
 gates upon me." Well I do sincerely hope that he will. 
 Come on, brother, take ofi* your gloves. I only wish 
 that he could have been induced to have opened his 
 flood-gates before. He expresses a great deal of anxiety 
 to know what 1 believe. Yerywell. I believe that there 
 is one true and living God, and one Son of God, as set 
 forth in the Bible. But my brother can not see into this; 
 his creed can not be reconciled to it, and he must defend 
 his creed. But he has already denied about one-half of 
 it, yet he thinks that it must be true. 1 hope that before 
 the debate closes he will think differently. 
 
 He traces the Trinity back to the fourth century. I want 
 him to account for the fact that there is no Trinity in the 
 Bible — no Trinity in any of the writings of the early 
 fathers — no Trinity in the Apostle's creed — no Trinity in 
 the Nicene creed ? Why were there no Trinitarian his- 
 torians until after the fourth century ? Why was it that 
 the barbarous nations which I have mentioned, although 
 Christian, yet rejected the doctrine of the Trinity? How 
 was it that the Roman soldiers marched through their 
 countries with fire and sword, subduing them to the Trin- 
 ity ? These were the means made use of, save that where 
 they invaded the Boman empire, and mingling with the 
 Eoman population, finally imbibed the doctrines taught 
 by the Eoman church. I want my brother to account 
 for these things, and not pass them by, merely saying 
 that there is no argument in them. If he renounces the 
 word Trinity, why does he not put it out of his creed ? 
 Why not ? He says that it is unessential, and admits 
 that it is not found in the Bible ! Yet the unity of the 
 Godhead, he says, " consists of three persons." I deny 
 it. I ask for the chapter and verse where it is recorded. 
 If it is thus recorded, I must receive it. But it is not. 
 I have high Trinitarian authority which says, that the 
 Trinity is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. If 
 it is not, and is without authority, how can my brother 
 receive it as Christian doctrine ? 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 167 
 
 I will now read a few sentences, showing the contra- 
 dictions in my brother's theory. According to Trinita- 
 rianism: 
 
 Jesus is very God, and very man. 
 The invisible God ; but was often seen. 
 The immortal God ; but he died. 
 Omnipotent God ; but an angel strengthened him. 
 Omniscient God ; but knew not the day or the hour. 
 Equal with God ; and is the same God he is equal 
 with. 
 
 Is the Son of God ; and the God that he is the Son of. 
 He is equal with the Father, and is the Father. 
 He is the Son ; but is as eternal as his Father. 
 Is as great as his Father ; and his Father is greater 
 than he. 
 
 Is the only begotten Son ; and is the unbegotten God. 
 
 Is the only true God ; and is the Son of the only true 
 God. ^ 
 
 Is the self-existent God ; and the Son of the self-ex- 
 istent God. 
 
 Always had all power ; but received all power of his 
 Father. 
 
 Has a Father ; and is that God who has no Father. 
 
 Divinity and humanity united never to be divided ; 
 but the divinity forsook the humanity on the cross. 
 
 Cannot be divided ; but one was dead, the other living. 
 
 He came out from God ; but is the God he came out 
 from. 
 
 He prayed to God ; but was the God he prayed to. 
 He is the God who gave his Son ; and is the Son 
 given. 
 
 He said, Father, I thank thee ; and was tlie Father. 
 He is the only wise God ; and the Son of the only 
 wise God. 
 
 He is the mediator between God and men ; and is the 
 God with whom he pleads. 
 
 He is the God that has no body; but took again his 
 body. 
 
168 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 He is the God that no man hath seen ; but was often 
 seen. 
 
 Is the God that has no parts ; yet has both body and 
 parts. 
 
 He is the unchangeable God ; but became man. 
 He is self-existent ; but has a Father. 
 He is eternal ; but was begotten before all worlds. 
 He is but one person ; but is the God that is three 
 persons. 
 
 God says, that Jesus is his Son ; but he is God him- 
 self. 
 
 The Bible says, that God is not a man ; but he is the 
 man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Brethren, shall we cease to be men, and believe all 
 these contradictions ? 
 
 He says that he will attend to my arguments at some 
 future time ; why not now? Now is the time, instead of 
 flying off* into irrelevant matter, and altogether neglect- 
 ing my principal arguments, as well as the numerous 
 passages of Scripture, disproving the Trinity. He quotes 
 that "The Devil goes about as a roaring lion," &c., to 
 prove that he cannot be present in more than one place 
 at a time. Very well ! Let us see how this will work. 
 Allowing eight liundred millions to be an average num- 
 ber of the human family, and thirty-three years to be a gen- 
 eration, and that the adversary spends one hour only with 
 one man, and in thirty-three years we will have over 
 seven hundred and ninety-nine millions, whom he has 
 not visited ; and reckoning from the creation on the same 
 calculation, and we find that he could not have been 
 present with more than three out of a hundred of the 
 human family. But he says there are others. If there 
 were seventy-eight thousand of these " little old scratches," 
 they could not have called on all the human family, by 
 several thousand. Such is a specimen of the effects of 
 my brother's defining spirits. I tell you it would be a 
 great relief to my brother's system, if he could prove 
 that there is no other adversary than such a one as that. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 169 
 
 Passing on now, I will read Dr. Clarke, on the only text 
 which professedly sustains the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 I want to show you, that they do not believe that it is 
 Scripture, if Clarke is to be believed. 
 
 John V, 7, "There are three that bear record in hea- 
 ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and 
 these three are one." 
 
 Clarke, after writing several pages to prove this text a 
 forgery, sums up as follows : 
 
 1. " One hundred and thirteen Greek MSS. are extant, 
 containing the First Epistle of John, and the text in 
 question is wanting in one hundred and twelve. 
 
 2. " All the Greek Fathers omit the verse, though 
 many of them quote both the sixth and the eighth verse, 
 applying them to the Trinity, and divinity of Christ, and 
 the Holy Spirit : yea, and endeavor to prove the Trinity 
 from verses six and eight, without referring to any such 
 verse as the seventh ; which, had it existed, would have 
 been a more positive proof, and one that could not have 
 been overlooked. 
 
 3. " The first place where the verse appears in Greek, 
 is in the translation of the Acts of the council of Lateran, 
 held, A. D., 1215. 
 
 4. " Though it is found in many Latin copies, yet it 
 does not appear that any, written previously to the tenth 
 century, contain it. 
 
 5. The Latin Fathers do not quote it, even where it 
 would have greatly strengthened their arguments, and 
 where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally 
 expected. 
 
 6. " Vigilius, bishop of Topsum, at the conclusion of 
 the fifth century, is the first who seems to have referred 
 expressly to the three heavenly witnesses. But his quo- 
 tation does not agree with the present text, either in words 
 or in sense ; and beside, he is a writer of very little cre- 
 dit, nor does the place alleged, appear to learned men to 
 be genuine. 
 
 7. The Latin writers who do refer to the three heav- 
 
 15 
 
ITO 
 
 DISCtSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 enly witnesses, vary greatly in their quotations, &c, very 
 many omitting the clause, 'these three are one,' &c. 
 
 8. " It is wanting in all the ancient versions, the Yul- 
 gate excepted ; but the more ancient copies of this, have 
 it not. (fee. 
 
 9. ''It is wanting in the first edition of Erasmus, 
 A. D., 1516, &c. 
 
 10. " It is wanting in the German translation of Lu- 
 ther, and in all the editions of it published during his 
 lifetime. 
 
 11. " It is inserted in our early English translations, 
 but with marks of doubtfulness, as has already been 
 shown. 
 
 12. "In short, it stands on no authority, sufficient to 
 authenticate any part of a revelation, professing to have 
 come from God." (fee, (fee. (fee. 
 
 Thus, accordino' to their own showings, this text is a 
 forgery, and was put in to sustain the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, But how can we rely upon a doctrine which is 
 sustained, only, by forged passages of Scripture ? Mr. 
 Barnes, the very able Presbyterian commentator, also 
 rejects the above text. 
 
 My brother thinks, that when the Son of man is spoken 
 of, it refers to the humanity ; but is my brother prepared to 
 admit that the humanity was omnipresent ? yet it was 
 while on earth, that Jesus said, " Even the Son of man, 
 which is in heaven and they think that this proves om- 
 nipresence. The Christians believe, that the Son of man 
 is the Son of the living God, (Matt, xvi.) ; that the child 
 born, was Christ the Lord, and that the second man is 
 the Lord from heaven. If my brother could only believe 
 this, it would be a great improvement in his system ; he 
 could find in the Son of God, a medium between God 
 and men, which he can never find in his " very man " 
 system. 
 
 I now design giving you some account of the rise of 
 the Trinity, and evidence that the early Christians were 
 not Trinitarians. It is given up, by the best historians 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 171 
 
 and commentators, that the early Christians held to the 
 subordination of the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father : 
 that is. denied the equality. Xeander states that this was 
 the doctrine of the anti-!Nicene church. See Vol. i, p. 
 607 : Vol. ii, pp. 361. 363. 364. 365. and 424, where he 
 shows that the Trinity was not equality, but a threefold 
 gradation, and calls it the subordination theory. So Mr. 
 Barnes, finding that the Xicene creed makes Christ not a 
 self-existent, but a derived God, repudiates its doctrine ; 
 and consequently, rejects the Xicene fathei's as not sound 
 Trinitarians. Hawies, condemns Justin Martyr, saying, 
 
 An Arian might subscribe his coniession. i. 169 ; and 
 condemns those early Christians as Arians. long before 
 Arius lived: see p. 199; and thinks Justin, Origen. Ter- 
 tullian. Pantaneus. and many others, taught Arianism in 
 the second century ; p. 164. ** Xot a sign of the Trinity 
 is found in any of the early fathei-s, neither were the 
 dominant party Arians — the Arians had but seventeen 
 bishops at the council of Nice — but although the Trinity 
 does not belong to the fundamental articles of the Chris- 
 tian faith ; yet it constituted, from the beginning, the 
 fundamental consciousness of the Catholic church." — 
 Nean. i, 572, 573. ^ 
 
 If my brother can quote any historian, before the 
 fourth century, in favor of any Trinitarian creed. I want 
 him to do it before this congregation. Why were there 
 no Trinitarians, kings, bishops, nobles, or priests I These 
 are things which I want my brother to clear up. If the 
 early Church were Trinitarian, history would so record 
 it : while, if history does not so record it. he must admit 
 that it was not so. But, though the Trinity is of ancient 
 date among the heathen, as proved by Clarke, the word 
 was first found among Christians in the latter part of the 
 second century. The Xicene creed first called Christ a 
 derived God in A. D. 325. Tiie Trinity received its 
 finishing touch, as its friends say, in 3S1. Mosh.i, 128. 
 The human soul in Christ was first mentioned in the 
 third centuT}'. And the procession of the Holy Ghoet 
 
172 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITT. 
 
 was settled A. D. 653. Mosh. i. ^25. The Athanasian 
 creed was formed in the filth century ; and the doctrine 
 of two natures was not settled till 6 SO. Gib. iii, 445 
 and iv, 422. It is clear that the Greek father Origan 
 was not a Trinitarian, for when accused of having a big 
 God and a little one, he replied : He who is God of 
 himself is The God — for which reason Jesus calls him, 
 John xvii. 3. * The only true God.' In the fourth cen- 
 tury, orthodox historians state that there was not a Trini- 
 tarian bishop of any note, except Athanasius. so that it 
 was said. '*Athanasius against all the world, and all the 
 world against Athanasius.** and he was an excommuni- 
 cated bishop. The whole world during that period is 
 called Arian. Such is the testimony of Hawies. Xean- 
 der. and numbers of the best Trinijiaiian authors. Xean- 
 der admits that our views were most populai* do^vn to the 
 firth centuiy. and that they were upheld by the majority 
 until the establishment of Popery. These are facts to 
 be remembered. All the early councils were against 
 the Trinity. In the fourth centui-y, there were forty-five 
 councils held, of which all but thirteen opposed the 
 Trinity. The largest councils ever held in ancient times 
 opposed it. ^ 
 
 "Wadington says, that they believed the Son to be sub- 
 ordinate, "but not created: pp. 115-117. When Theo- 
 dosius, the tvrant. was baptized in the Ti-iuitarian faith, 
 though the iii-st emi>eror baptized in that faith, he was 
 the tenth Christian emperor ; and when he set about 
 establishing the Trinity, one hundred congregations were 
 ex[jelled from their churches in Constantinople by the 
 soldiers, in one day, to establish that creed. See Gib- 
 bon iii, 75. At this time, every other government in 
 the world was opposed to it. Clovis, of Prance, in the 
 sixth century, was called the eldest son of the Church, 
 because the first king to embrace that doctrine, thoagh 
 there had been Christian kings from the year ISO. 
 
 Those barbarous nations, so called, which included all 
 nations outside of the Koman Empire, the English, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. IfB 
 
 Germans, and all, rejected the Trinity ; yet they were 
 Christian, had the Bible translated into their own lan- 
 guage, and were renowned for their knowledge of the 
 IScriptures, and urged the establishment of Bible schools 
 among the Romans. Neander ii, 150. When the Athana- 
 sian creed was drawn up, it was in a dark and cruel age, 
 and it begins with cursing and ends with cursing. The 
 conversion of the nations to the Trinity, is called in the 
 Book of Revelations, "giving their power to the Beast." 
 The Bible is against the Trinit}^ for there is in it only 
 one passage for it, and they acknowledge (pious souls) 
 that they forged it. The early fathers are considered he- 
 retical, as I have shown. Millions have been put to 
 death to establish it, or for denying it. Jerome acknow- 
 ledges that, in the fourth century, they had but one 
 bishop. Now, I refer my brother to Mosheim, Neander, 
 and other Trinitarian authors ; and I want him to ex- 
 plain these objections to his system ; How is it that the 
 two oldest ecclesiastical historians are called Arian and 
 Unitarian ? Where are the early Trinitarian historians ? 
 I want him to account for the fact, that the lirst Trinita- 
 rian creeds arose so long after the Apostles' creed. I 
 want him to tell us, why all the nations which embraced 
 Christianity before the fourth and fifth centuries, rejected 
 the Trinity ? Why was it that these nations had to be 
 converted to the Trinity, by Roman soldiers marching 
 through their coasts with fire and sword ? If he re- 
 nounces the word Trinity, he should take it out of his 
 creed. If it is non-essential, why is it there ? I want 
 him to account for these things, and not pass them by, 
 by saying that there is no argument in them. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Eleventh reply : 
 
 I shall commence my reply, by noticing two passages 
 of Scripture given to me by my brother, which I did not 
 notice this morning. John vi, 38. " For I came down 
 from heaven, not to do mine own but the will of 
 him that sent me." I understand this to be strictly in 
 
1T4 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ox THE TRINITY. 
 
 accordance with the language of Christ, in the garden — 
 " Father, if it be possible, let this cnp pass from me." 
 Whatever he had to endure, ^vhatever he had to sufler, 
 in order to accomplish his great work, I understand he 
 came to submit to. however revolting it was to the feeble- 
 ness of human nature. And then, in the most exti-eme 
 case, with regard to the work he came to do, he says : 
 '* I came to do the will of him that sent me showing 
 that the human nature was subordinate to the divine. 
 John xvii, 3. ^'Aud this is life eternal, that they might 
 know thee, the only ti-ue God. and Jesus Christ whom 
 thou hast sent." 1 have repeatedly asserted here, that 
 there is but one living and true God ; and my brother 
 would have me prove a proposition which he himself has 
 furnished a thousand passages to prove — that God is 
 one ; and this language is employed to express this great 
 truth of the oneness of God ; and yet there is nothing 
 contained in this passage which, in the slightest degree, 
 disproves that in this one God there ai-e not three dis- 
 tinct persons composing this one living and true God. 
 I now design, in the next place, to respond to my bro- 
 ther's quotation, from which he has assumed that it is 
 the united testimony of the fathers, that Socinianism, 
 whether called Arianism or not, was received by the 
 Chmx'h. I will give you a few quotations from the 
 fathers, to show you what were the, sentiments of the 
 Church before the introduction of Arianism in the fourth 
 century. 
 
 I quote first from Ignatius^ who wrote at latest about 
 the year 107. Gregory's Evidences, page 336. ''Be 
 not led aside by strange doctrines, nor by antiquated 
 tales, which are unprofitable ; lor if we yet live accord- 
 ing to Judaism, it is equivalent to declaring that we 
 have not accepted grace, for the most holy prophets 
 lived according to Christ Jesus. And for that cause 
 were they persecuted, being inspired by the gTace of 
 Christ, that the unbelievers might be convinced that 
 there is one God, who hath manifested himself by his 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 175 
 
 son Jesus Christ, who is his eternal Word." This looks 
 very much like that the primitive Church equalized 
 Jesus Christ, in his divine nature, with the Father. 
 
 Justin Martyr has the following passage pref'eiTed by 
 Dr. Grabe. When man's nature had contracted cor- 
 ruption, it was necessary that lie who would save it, 
 should do away the principle of corruption. But this 
 could not be done, without uniting essential life with the 
 nature so corrupted, to do awa}^ the corruption, and ever 
 after to immortalize the corrupt nature. Wherefore it 
 was meet that the Wo7'd shmdd become incarnate^ to 
 deliver us from the death of natural corruption." 
 
 Tertullian understood the phrase. Son of God^ as ap- 
 plied to Christ, to mean the same as God of God ; as is 
 obvious from many parts of his writings. There is still 
 extant a creed of his, which runs thus: "We believe in 
 one God ;" but under this dispensation, which we call 
 the economy, that the one God liath a Son^ xoliich is Jiis 
 Word, who proceeded from him, and by whom all things 
 were made ; he was sent from the Father to the Virgin, 
 and was born of her both God and man — Son of man, 
 and Son of God. Who afterward, according to his pro- 
 mise, sent from the Father the Holy Ghost — the com- 
 forter, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in 
 the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. This is the rule 
 which has co?7ie down to us from the heginniiig of the 
 Gospel. And again, what is it that the Gospel has 
 done ? What is the substance of the New Testament, 
 extending the law and the prophets as far as John; if, 
 from thence forward, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three 
 persons, are not believed to make one God ? Origen^ 
 also, in his writings against Celsus, furnishes many as- 
 sertions, which are unequivocal and decisiv^e. Thus he 
 affirms first, that Christ was the uncreated Son of God ; 
 secondly, that the Maker of the world is to be wor- 
 shiped ; thirdly, that Christ is the maker of the world. He 
 maintains a precise distinction between creatures and 
 their creator ; and he brings them together into compa- 
 
176 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITT. 
 
 risen as to the respect that is clue to them. The term 
 Trinity does not occur in this author ; but all that is es- 
 sential to the doctrine of the Trinity, is most clearly stated. 
 " This is the mle which has come down to us." — Gre- 
 gory's Evidences, p. 338, &c. We now quote page 340. 
 JSfovoAian expresses himself as follows : " If no one 
 can be saved by God the Father, who does not confess 
 that Christ is God, in whom and by whom the Father 
 promises to give salvation. Wherefore whosoever ac- 
 knowledges him to be God, is in the way to be saved by 
 Christ, who is God ; and whosoever does not acknow- 
 ledge him to be God, forfeits salvation, because he can 
 not otherwise have it^ tlian in Christ as GodP 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Rome, after censuring I^arcissus' 
 tritheistic doctrine as diabolical, says : " iS;"or are they 
 less to blame who think the Son a creature, and who 
 suppose the Lord to have come into being, as if he were 
 one of the things that were really made." His cotempo- 
 rary, Dionysius of Alexandria, (both flourished about A. 
 D. 159.) expressed himself thus : " The Father being 
 eternal, the Son must be eternal too. Light of Light. 
 The names mentioned by me are undivided, and inse- 
 parable ; when I named the Father before I mentioned 
 the Son, I signified the Son in the Father. If any of my 
 false accusers suspect that because I called God creator 
 and former of all things, I made him creator of Christ, 
 let him consider that 1 before styled him Father, and so 
 the Son was included in hirnp The case of this Dio- 
 nysius of Alexandria, evinces very plainly of what great 
 moment the belief of Christ's divinity was reckoned in 
 the third century. In controversy with the Sabellians, 
 he expressed himself rather unwarily, and hence became 
 suspected of leaning too far toward the opposite extreme, 
 and of holding inadequate notions of the Deity of 
 Christ. 
 
 From these quotations, all of which relate to the ear- 
 liest authors, 1 do not question that heresies existed 
 among the pagans. My brother says when Constantine 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 177 
 
 attempted to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity, many 
 suffered death, rather than embrace it. These were the 
 devotees of a false religion. And on the other hand, he 
 supposes that because idolatrous nations resisted the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, therefore, the Trinity must be false ! 
 Is not this a most beautiful argument? This brother 
 thought the discussion on this subject must continue for 
 five or six days. I thought I could empty my barrel in 
 three days, and it would have been vrey desirable, at this 
 sickly season of the year, to have done so ; but I con- 
 sented to follow in the train of this great luminary of the 
 nineteenth century, and have acceded to his proposition. 
 
 My brother refers to Clarke, and says I intimated that 
 he did not quote the doctor correctly. My intimation 
 was, that he did great injustice to the author. My ex- 
 ception was not taken to the passage itself; but it was to 
 the use which was sought to be made of it. My brother 
 insisted that the doctor was pressed for support of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and was compelled to go to hea- 
 then authors for conlirmation. If he desires that this 
 debate should go to the world in book form, I have 
 nothing to hazard in my own mind against it ; but I do 
 hope that my brother will relieve me from appearing in 
 the position that his opponent had yielded a single point. 
 I want the record to be made — to stand out in bold relief^ — 
 that no one position of mine has, in the slightest degree, 
 been negatived during this discussion, nor at any time 
 been given up, nor apologized for. I have no apology to 
 make for any position ; if the argument sustain it, I shall 
 remain content, and I am certain that those w^ho sympa- 
 thize with my views will also. My brother asserts that we 
 are baptizing in the name of the Word, or Logos, and not in 
 the Word, or Son. Christ is properly known as begotten 
 of the Father, under the name of the Son. There is but 
 one person — the divine and the human natures united 
 in Jesus Christ ; hence, it is very proper that we should 
 not baptize in the name of any other, than in the name 
 of the Son. Baptism, by it, is a Christian institution ; 
 
178 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 and it is proper that those introduced into the church of 
 the living God, should receive the ordinance of baptism, 
 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And 
 when they hear that solemn language announced, the 
 very idea of the equality of the persons in whose name 
 they are baptized, is impressed upon the mind. " I 
 baptize thee, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost." But my opponent says, that I have 
 given up the doctrine contained in the creed, or consti- 
 tution. It is an article expressive of the general view ; 
 it does not say we believe so much, and no more, for we 
 refer to the Word of God, as the only infallible autho- 
 rity. It is an honest expose of the generally received 
 view of the church. Every church has its vie^ys ; and 
 my brother will find them strung up in a long book. 
 He says that I admit God has a physical body ; I have 
 stated from the first that Jesus Christ, that the Word, or 
 Logos, had taken upon himself a human body, and that 
 human body never was to be permanently separated, but 
 to remain undivided to all eternity : this position was 
 defined and explained this morning. My brother then 
 refers to my remark of taking ofi" my gloves. I intimated 
 that I wanted my brother to be close to me, so that I 
 might finger him, (metaphysically,) and that he might 
 feel me. As to lifting thejlood-gatas^ he had better not 
 be too critical ; the summer-bell would not jingle so plea- 
 santly, if submerged. He refers again to what he sup- 
 poses an orthodox admission ; in speaking of the lesser 
 spirits, he calls them "little rascals whether it is a 
 rich selection of language, I leave you to judge. Then 
 he has been pleased to ascertain what number there may 
 be afloat and abroad ! Surely, sir, you will grow inter- 
 esting in all these speeches ; you become more and more 
 fruitful in 4;his style ! I merely assume that it was not 
 found in my creed, that Satan was an omnipresent being. 
 I believe he is a very vicious devil ; a very wicked 
 devil ; and in some respects, a very foolish devil ; and 
 as to his being present in more than one place at a time, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 179 
 
 I leave to my brother, who seems to think it may be so. I 
 agree with Pope, " Wlien men," &c. 
 
 Clarke rejected John v, 7. That it was only in one out 
 of one hundred and thirteen translations. It is supposed 
 by the author, that it might have been introduced by 
 some of the councils. We have no evidence as to how 
 it was introduced. I have not quoted it in this discus- 
 sion, merely to give my brother no ground of quibble ; 
 I have no evidence that it is not true, but I avoided any 
 possible cause of collision, because I discover a tendency 
 to make great matters of questions of this kind. He 
 refers to tiie fact, that millions have sufiered martyrdom 
 for rejecting this doctrine — denying the Trinity. I sup- 
 pose my brother is aware, that millions w^ho have also 
 suffered martyrdom, have believed the contrary. Among 
 those that suffered persecution under Nero, many were 
 Trinitarians, and embraced the doctrine of the sove- 
 reignty of Jesus Christ, and the essential Deity of the 
 Holy Spirit. The eVidence of the truth of this doctrine, 
 is not so full in the Old Testament scripture, but it is 
 very clear from the New ; as we read in John i, " In 
 the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God." This is the Word that 
 became Mediator, by taking upon himself flesh and 
 dwelling among us. I shall now proceed to state, that 
 my brother has been giving himself a great deal of con- 
 cern about my not defending the Divinity of the Holy 
 Spirit. I take it for granted that he does not believe in 
 the divinity of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, he would not 
 require me to defend it. It seems passing strange to my 
 mind, that he should have forgotten that he, and not I, is 
 in the affirmative on this question. If he should labor to 
 make it appear that, according to the teaching of our 
 book, this doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, I 
 would certainly have tried to be with him on the subject. 
 I remark that works are attributed to the Holy Spirit, 
 that conld be performed by God only. Gen. i, 2. 
 
 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
 
180 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 waters." This has respect to the agency of the Spirit in 
 connection with the creation. In Mat. xxviii, 19. we 
 have the testimony first of the personality of the Holy 
 Spirit, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Sou, and of 
 the Holy Ghost." Now, if this language gives a person- 
 ality to the Father, it also gives the same to the Son ; 
 and if a personality to the Son, it also gives a personality 
 to the Holy Spirit. Luke iii, 22. ''And the Holy Ghost 
 descended in a bodily shape like a dove, uj^on him, and 
 a voice came from heaven, which said. Thou art my 
 beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.'' This relates to 
 the baptism of Christ by John, and the Holy Spirit is 
 here personified. All the three persons are interested in 
 this transaction ; Christ the Mediator, is alx)ut to receive 
 the rite of baptism at the hand of John, and the Father 
 is represented as expressing himself from heaven, while 
 the Holy Spirit is in the form of a dove. A voice is 
 heard, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased." Here, then, is evidence clear of the person- 
 ality of the Holy Spirit. It is the eflect of the office of 
 the Spirit, that he should be separate and distinct, in the 
 transaction, from the Father and the Son ; and it being 
 distinct, was noticed in the bodily shape of a dove. It 
 could have as well assumed any other appearance, but it 
 was such as Divine Wisdom thought proper to make. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Twelfth address : 
 
 He says that the Holy Ghost, i. e., " God the Spirit," 
 might as well have appeared in any other shape, as that 
 of a dove ; but I answer, that it is as hard to believe that 
 God was ever seen in a bodily shape like a dove, as any 
 other shape, so long as we believe Jesus, that no man hath 
 seen God at any time. 
 
 Had he not better say, that it was a manifestation of 
 the Spirit of God, i. e., of the Spiritual influence ? The 
 other day, he introduced it as a pendulum suspended from 
 the throne of God, and swinging through heaven, earth, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 181 
 
 and hell. I do not see what my brother gains by making 
 the Spirit of God a distinct person from the Father, and 
 the Son — even the supreme God, and then " swinging it 
 from beneath the throne ! " 
 
 He thinks that Mat. xxviii, 19, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, proves the personality of the Holy Ghost. For, 
 says he, the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, 
 and so the Holy Ghost must be a person ; but we might 
 just as w^ell say fire must be a person, for in Mat. iii, 11, 
 it says, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and 
 (with) fire." For if the Spirit is a person, because 
 joined with the Father and Son in the one text, fire must 
 be, because joined with the Holy Ghost in the other. 
 But it will not do to manufacture a Trinity in this way. 
 If it is not a Bible doctrine, better put it away ; and that 
 it is not, is admitted by the most eminent authority 
 among Trinitarian authors, which says that it is not a 
 fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 
 
 My brother thinks that Gen. i, 3, proves the person- 
 ality of the Holy Ghost. The generality of Trinitarian 
 authors think diiferently, how^ever. The Bible says that 
 it was the Spirit of God ; but God is not the Spirit of 
 God, and I must believe the Word of God. Here my 
 brother became quite merry — let that pass. But again, 
 he seemed grieved at my calling the agents of the de- 
 stroyer of souls, little rascals, and thinks that I am very 
 hard-hearted. But I think that my heart is just as soft 
 and gentle as my brother's, and I also think, that parents 
 generally, would just as soon have me use the word 
 rascals, before their children, as Devils. But he thinks 
 that more is laid to the enemy of souls, than he is guilty 
 of. I admit it, especially, if he is in but one place at 
 a time. But that does not prove the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Then he threatened to take ofi' his gloves ! Do, my 
 brother, and take hold of the subject in earnest. Next 
 he threatens to open the flood-gates upon me, and here 
 
182 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 he becomes decidedly fuDny. He thinks that the 
 Summerbell would not jingle under water. Why, then, 
 does he not put it under the water, and try it ? Why 
 does he not bring on the flood, and put a stop to the 
 jingling ? I am sure that this would please him very 
 much. Come, brother, take ofl" your gloves, and let 
 down the flood. Don't keep telling us what you will do, 
 but do it. He intimates that they do not use the word 
 Logos in the baptism formula, because it is a Christian 
 institution ! Strange idea I ! 
 
 I come now to notice his quotations from the fathere, 
 with which a friend down helov: there^ keeps him sup- 
 plied. But still he goes to his own side for authority, 
 and quotes from Gregory's sectarian work on the Trin- 
 ity ; thus he constantly quotes ex parte testimony. Well, 
 what do his fathers say i The first he cjuotes, says that 
 Christ was the eternal Word, just the Christian doctrine; 
 but says not one word about a Trinity. You should have 
 found Trinity there, my brother. Xext he quotes what 
 Justin Martyr says, of the greatness of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. We contend for that greatness, but there is no 
 Trinity in that. But Justin says, farther, that "Christ 
 is diflerent from the God who made all things by him, 
 numerically diflerent, but the same in will." Those 
 fathers held, in the main, precisely the same views of 
 Christ that we do ; and not one true Trinitarian can he 
 find among them all. He finds some comfort in Tertul- 
 lian, because TertuUian says " God of God." But my 
 brother won't admit that, for it makes one God too 
 many ; it makes two Gods, and yet proves no Trinity. 
 They need three eternal persons ; not two Gods. 
 
 Tertullian says, " God was not always a Father or a 
 Judge, since he could not be a father before he had a Son, 
 nor a judge before sin." Tertullian's faith will not do. 
 Hawies, my brother's own authority, gives up Tertullian 
 altogether, with Justin Martyr, Origen, and others. 
 Thus my brother gets along poorly in quoting them as 
 Ti'initarian. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRIIHTT. 
 
 188 
 
 He next quotes Novatian as saying that God does not 
 save any one, &c. Well, now, suppose that I admitted 
 that Gocl does not save any one, my brother would not. 
 God does save ns by his Son. I dispute that authority, 
 although if I acknowledged it, it would prove of no avail 
 to my brother. But there is no Trinity in that. Nova- 
 tian's words are, " God the Father is alone without ori- 
 gin ; when he himself pleased, the Word was born." 
 The tmth is, the ancient fathers did not hold to the Trin- 
 ity, and my brother has been able to find no Trinity in 
 them. 
 
 He comments on my saying that the barbarous nations 
 objected to the Trinity, and makes this an ofiset to finding 
 the Trinity among the heathen, previous to its existence 
 in the church. But my brother is mistaken about the 
 meaning of the word barbarous here. The Greeks and 
 Ilomans called all barbarous who did not speak their 
 language. These were, many of them, German nations 
 and Christians, to say the least, no more barbarous than 
 the Romans. Ulphilus, the Goth, translated the Bible 
 into their language ; they had Bible schools, and Jerome 
 was surprised at their proficiency in quoting the original 
 Hebrew. They held to the supremacy of the Father, but 
 denied that the Son was a creature. (See Wad. 117, 165.) 
 My brother made quite an argument here, excusing their 
 going to the Chinese for the Trinity, by my saying that 
 those barbarous nations rejected the Trinity ; but I leave 
 the audience to judge between us. He quotes John vi, 
 38, " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will 
 but the will of him that sent me." My brother wrestled 
 with this text, but he failed to throw it. It has stood, 
 and will stand for ever. This text teaches the subordina- 
 tion of the '-divine nature," for his "human nature" had 
 not been in heaven. Who was it that came down from 
 heaven, not to do his own will ? Who sent him ? Jesus 
 says, that he came out from the Father — he came out 
 from God — he was rich, and for our sakes became poor. 
 Who was it, God or man ? humanity or divinity ? On 
 
184 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 John xvii, 3, " This is life eternal, that thev might know 
 thee the only tvuv. GoclJ- — he says, there is nothing in it. 
 Does the personal pronoun THEE mean three persons or 
 one ? It says that this THEE is the only true God. That 
 is, only one person is God. I do insist on my brother's 
 explaining these texts. Let him tell us how it is that his 
 creed is not named in the Bible — that the Trinity is 
 never named ? How it is that what we believe is stated 
 so plain and so often, and yet we are wrong ? I will 
 now direct your attention to further authorities on the 
 fathers. I hold in my hand Hawies. He calls Origeu 
 the prolific father of heresy, and ranks him with Euse- 
 bius as an Arian ; and says that Dr. Clarke is as much 
 a blasphemer as Socinus. Hawies, Yol. i, 253. 
 
 The doctrine that Christ had a human soul, was not 
 held by the j^rimitive church. They held that the Logos 
 that was in the beginning with God, was the soul of the 
 body. Xeander i, il35, says, that TertuUian was the first 
 to express distinctly and clearly the doctrine that Christ 
 possessed a purely human soul," and that this doctrine 
 grew up in opposition to Docetism. P. 634, and Vol. i, 
 593, say, that the synod convened against Beryll, set- 
 tled the doctrine concerning a human soul in Christ." 
 The anti-Xicene church held that the Son of God was of 
 the same essence as the Father, and distinguished be- 
 tween the Son of God and all created beings, (Xeander 
 ii, 380,) but yet that he was subordinate to the Father. 
 Origen says, " As the Son of God and the Holy Spirit 
 are incomparably exalted above all other existences, so 
 high, and even higher, is the Father exalted above them." 
 Nean. ii, 590. I do not quote Origen, because I believe 
 all that he says, but because my brother quoted him as a 
 Trinitarian. "The subordination of Christ to the Father 
 is acknowledged by Xeander, on pages 364, 365 ; and in 
 Yol. i, 605, 607, &c., to have been the primitive faith. 
 
 1 have already read to you that those who held the 
 Christian views, at the Nicene council, were the more 
 " numerous and dominant party," called the " Old Church 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 185 
 
 Party,-' which says Neander, held to the older system of 
 subordination (ii,*^ 424), and were called "peace-makers," 
 who, though the majority were yet called the *' Authors 
 of Peace," wlio wished to settle the divinity of Christ in 
 Scripture phraseology, (p. 374) and adhered tenaciously 
 to simple Bible doctrine — teaching nothing which they 
 could not prove with the exactness of verbal testimony 
 from the Bible (376), and how these were put. down by 
 the emperor. I will now turn again to a classification 
 of the fathers, to sec where they belong. Hawies says, 
 i, 164, "Justin (Martyr), Origen, Tertullian, Pantaneus, 
 and MANY others, zealous indeed," — " ready to die ;" yet 
 holding a Christianity of so equivocal a nature as to ren- 
 der it very dubious whether they had any real part or lot 
 in the matter." " It must be acknowledged that there 
 is scarce one of the fathers who hath not expressed him- 
 self in terms so indistinct, or so improper," &c. P. 171. 
 Hawies is high Trinitarian authority, but after condem^- 
 ing the principal of the fathers, says, that scarcely one is 
 right. Thus the highest Trinitarian authority acknowl- 
 edges that the primitive church denied the equality of 
 the Son with the Father, and repudiates the lathers. I 
 could have wished to have read the words of some forty 
 of the fathers, but will now proceed to the argument on 
 Elohim. Their argument is, that Elohim i-s plural, 
 viz: Elohim (the Gods). 
 
 Elohim occurs. Gen. i, 1, Berasheeth hra Elohim 
 eth hashaumaim veeth haarets. In the beginning God 
 created the heavens and the earth. On this they argue 
 that as Elohim has the plural termination, it should be 
 translated Gods." To which I reply : 
 
 1st. That if Elohim be plural, it is a plurality of Gods^ 
 rather than of persons ; three Gods in one person rather 
 than three persons in one God, which, also, better agrees 
 with their doctrine that two (beings) natures, very God 
 and very man, constitute one person — one Christ. 
 
 2d. The Septuagint version renders Elohim into the 
 Greek, by Theos^ God, in the singular number, and thus 
 16 
 
186 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 presents seventy-two Hebrew scholars against my bro- 
 ther. They translated the Old Testament about 250 
 years B. C, and so could not have been prejudiced. 
 
 3d. From the Septuagint version Jesus almost inva- 
 riably quoted. (See Buck's Theo. Die.) Hence, Jesus 
 is against my brother, and in favor of the singular form. 
 
 4th. The Old Testament is often quoted by the inspired 
 apostles, who always render Elohim^ Hebrew, by Tlieos^ 
 Greek, in the singular. So that all the apostles ai-e 
 against the plurality of persons. 
 
 5th. My brother's own creed is against him, saying 
 positively that there is "but one God." 
 
 6th. This translation would not make simply three, 
 but at least four Gods ; for as the dual is the lowest form 
 of the plural, so Psalm xlv, 7, quoted Heb. i, 8, God, even 
 thy God, should be rendered " Gods, even thy Gods 
 w^hich, in the dual form of the noun, would make four 
 Gods, and in the triad form, six Gods. 
 
 7th. Forty Trinitarian divines translated Elohim by 
 the singular noun God, as it stands in our common Eng- 
 lish Bibles. So that here we have forty Trinitarian 
 Hebrew scholars against my brother. 
 
 8th. Nobody believes in the doctrine claimed by the 
 plural form, for immediately after translating it " Gods^'' 
 they will say, "yet there is but one God." This my 
 brother does, so that Ae is not even on his own side of 
 the argument. 
 
 9th. Professor Stuart, in his Heb. Grammar, p. 180, 
 says, " For the sake of emphasis, the Hebrews employed 
 most of the words which signify Lord, God, &c., in the 
 plural form, but vntli the sense of the singular. This is 
 called, jphircdis excellentiay 
 
 10th. Also, Calvin, Mercer, Parens, Drusius, Bellar- 
 mine, and others, give the following reasons, why Elo- 
 him does not prove a plurality of persons: 
 
 1. Because it often means only the Father, as Ps. xlv, 7. 
 
 2. Or onlv the Son, as " Thy throne, O God."— Ibid. 
 
 3. Also, "The spirit of Elohim."— Gen. i, 2. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 18T 
 
 4. Because it is applied to one calf. — Ex. xxxii, 31. 
 
 5. It is applied to Moses. — Ex. vii, 1. 
 
 6. It is applied to the angel. — Judges xiii, 22. 
 
 7. To a dragon. — Judges xvi, 23. 
 
 8. To Ashtoreth.— 1 Kings, xi, 33. 
 
 11th. Other words are likewise in the plural, as own- 
 ers, Ex. xxi, 29 ; Mastei-s, xxi, 4 ; Lords, Holy ones, 
 beasts, wounds, rivers, walls, joys, dreams, deaths, favors, 
 wisdoms, &c. So one is buried in the towns of Gilead. 
 Gen. viii, The ark rested on the 7noiintai7\s. A very 
 high walls; or One dreamed a dreams; while another 
 was brought from the graves. — Job xxi. 32. 
 
 12th. Calvin says, **! warn my readers against vio- 
 lent interpretations of this kind.'' 
 
 13th. Mercer says, From other passages of the Scrip- 
 ture, the Trinity can be more clearly and easily estab- 
 lished." — Concessions, p. 83. 
 
 14:th. Dr. Campbell says, " Calvin refuted this argu- 
 ment, or quibble rather." See Systematic Theol. p. 489. 
 
 If my brother gives up that word, all well and good. 
 I wished to show that there was no Trinity in it. This 
 I have done, not only by the nature of the word, but I 
 have proved it by the highest Trinitarian authority — such 
 men as Stuart, Calvin, Luther, &c. My brother may 
 reject them, as he did Dr. South and others ; but they 
 will not be rejected — let him therefore treat such author- 
 ities courteously. 
 
 I wish my brother to give up his scheme of the Trinity. 
 It is untenable. Far better theories have been given up 
 by those in the Trinitarian ranks, and will be again. 
 
 I wish him to examine more thoroughly those texts 
 which speak of the pre-existence of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. And I desire the congregation to notice, how 
 feignally he fails in every argument he has brought for- 
 ward to support his theors\ And I want you^ to come 
 ahead, my brother, take oil* your gloves, and come up to 
 the work ; but don't fly off and waste your time in ex- 
 temporaneous declamations and exhortations. 
 
188 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Mk. Flood's Twelfth reply : 
 
 I have not made a practice of quoting learned authors, 
 unless I have been led into it, but if I have given any 
 erroneous quotations, I hope the reporters will make the 
 corrections. I quote Watson on the word EloMin. in the 
 article God. Here is one very res]Dectable authority that 
 God is one ; but the word is rendered in the plural. I do 
 not wish however, to protract the argument in that respect. 
 Isly brother wishes to know, why we should be found deny- 
 ing any of these learned authors, and says he is quoting 
 authorities on the opposite side; I suppose he will quote 
 no other authority. He admitted to me, in a private re- 
 mark, that the literary men of the world, and the litera- 
 ture of the world, was on our side, but he wished it was 
 on his ; I should not think it strange, if he would most 
 ardently desire that the literary world was changed upon 
 this subject, but perhaps, after his performance, it may 
 be so. I ask if he will accept the authority of Kivcaid? 
 My brother shakes his head. He refers again to the 
 question of the Hol}^ Spirit, and quotes some passages as 
 to the time it was introduced, but I do not design more 
 than just referring to these allusions. He says also, if 
 the personality of the Holy Ghost be inferred from the 
 association in the Baptismal ceremony, that the personality 
 of Fire may as well be predicated. I suppose he alludes 
 to what John says, " He that cometh after me baptizeth 
 you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.*' Hence, I sup- 
 pose, that because of that connection, and use of the 
 term, we might as well say, I baptize thee in the name 
 of the Father, Son, the Holy Ghost, and of Fire;" 
 meaning that there are four persons in the Godhead, into 
 which the subject is baptized. Then perhaps, my bro- 
 ther may conceive something like this ; "I shall baptize 
 you v:ith the Holy Ghost and v:ith Fire." How different 
 indeed ! I suppose my brother was uncertain what to do 
 with these ; but as it was something formidable, he would 
 resolve to attack it ; but it will remain an insurmounta- 
 ble barrier to all his attacks. He adverts to the subject 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 189 
 
 of the old enemy. Now I hoped that we should be free 
 from that. He alludes to the fact that I prefer the term 
 devil, which is a Scriptural term, to the term rascal ; and 
 he does not know but what any parent would prefer to 
 use the latter term before their child. I treated him as a 
 bad and corrupt devil ; hence, I have no reverence when 
 1 speak the name of the devil. If I regarded him as 
 almighty, as possessing the attributes of the divinity, I 
 might entertain some fearful notions common on this 
 subject. He says, because I adverted to these, I wished 
 to make fun ; this seems a favorite phrase of my bro- 
 ther's. Again, he says, I make fun of him in calling 
 him a second Luther ; well now, if these are not words 
 of commendation, and if I did not think them compli- 
 mentary, I should feel under an obligation to make an 
 apology. I hope he will be willing to regard it in this 
 light ; one of his most devoted admirers called him by 
 this name. The only discovery for which I claim credit, 
 is that of his being a great luminary. He certainly has 
 poured the radiance of his understanding around my 
 mind, but hitherto tailed to produce much efiect. He 
 complains of me for not submerging him before this ; I 
 do not wish to drown him — I am not that Flood that de- 
 stroyed the world. I am perfectly willing that he should 
 breathe wholesome air, for 1 hope to find him trying to 
 overturn the creed of the Methodists, and make it appear 
 that their doctrines are contrary to the teachings of the 
 AYord of God ; in asserting that there are three persons 
 in the Godhead, equal in substance, power, glory, and 
 eternity with Jesus Christ, the second person in the Tri- 
 nity and is equal in all these perfections with the Father. 
 
 This is the point which 1 hope to see him make an 
 efibrt to disprove, before he shall have done his work. 
 He desires me to direct my attention to John xvi, 28, 
 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 
 world.'' Again : " I leave the world and go to the 
 Father." Is there any place in the whole universe, 
 where any creature can be separated from the absolute 
 
190 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 presence of God? Is not this language used in an ac- 
 commodative sense ? When Christ speaks of himself 
 as coming out, it is not understood that he comes out, in 
 the sense that a man would come out from a city and go 
 from one place to another. Now, Christ declares : 
 " Know ye not that I am in the Father, and the Father 
 in me." He uses this language at the time of his in- 
 carnation, and employs the language come out," " and 
 sent," frequently to show that lie came to our sinful 
 world, and that he came down to the condition of our 
 helpless nature ; that he took upon himself human 
 nature, and thereby he came to unite himself with it, 
 taking upon him the form of a servant, that he might 
 lift up human nature from its fallen and degraded con- 
 dition, and restore it to the forfeited favor of Heaven. 
 The phrases to which I have referred, are not to be taken 
 in their absolute sense. He assumes that my system gave 
 to God a body ; and that if it were so, according to my 
 system, that Christ might with propriety appear on the 
 right hand of that body. Now, here is sometiiing more 
 of our brother's peculiar style of argument. I hold tliat 
 the infinite periections of Jehovah, the Father, and the 
 "Word, and tlie Holy Ghost, dwell bodily in Jesus Christ. 
 How then, could that body, in a literal sense, sit upon 
 the right hand of another, unless that they had a body 
 also? Now, the point I wish to know is this: He ad- 
 mits that Christ has a body, and the relation which that 
 body sustains to God ; then the point is, has God a body 
 independent of the physical body of Christ ? When 
 you come to answer this, you will find me somewhere 
 about you Vv^ith the gloves off; and when I am disposed 
 to give 3'ou a passage homeward, I will lift the flood- 
 gates higher than you have yet seen them. It is said, 
 that 
 
 " Little boats should keep neai* shore, 
 But larger boats may venture more." 
 
 My brother remarks : Christ was conceived by the mira- 
 culous overshadowing of the Virgin Mary by the Holy 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 191 
 
 Ghost. See Luke i, 35. "And the angel answered and 
 said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 
 the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; there- 
 fore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
 shall be called the Son of God.*' Why is Christ called 
 the Son of God ? Because he is the begotten of the 
 Father. It is the conclusion announced by the heavenly 
 messenger, and the evidence is given — he shall be called 
 the Son of God, for the very reason that he is begotten 
 of the Holy Spirit : hence his name shall be Son of God. 
 Prior to this, I have shown, John i, 14, he was known 
 as the Word or Logos ; and if I differ from those who 
 advocate the doctrine of the Trinity on the Sonship, it 
 does not affect the argument in the slightest degree ; it 
 rather strengthens my position. He is termed a Holy 
 Thing ; but previous to this he is termed by John^ the 
 Word, or Logos, which was in the beginning. Well 
 may he be called holy ! Here is a twofold argument. 
 The humanity itself is not by the ordinary generation, but 
 humanity in its perfection. He that created a perfect 
 man in the beginning, like Adam; he that has all 
 power, and that formed a perfect human body out of 
 dust, had the same power, if he thought proper, to repro- 
 duce one of a similar nature, as to body and soul — bad 
 he not the power to make one of the same kind ? Made 
 of a woman, that he might redeem us from the curse of 
 the law, and be made a sin-offering for us, had he not 
 the power, by the Holy Ghost coming upon and oversha- 
 dowing the Virgin Mary, to produce a perfect human 
 nature % The first Adam was made a man in the begin- 
 ning, but the reproduction of the second Adam, was th^ 
 Lord of Heaven. He came into the world in the help- 
 lessness of infancy, passed through the ordinary stages 
 of development, both as to physical constitution and 
 mental endowment; it seems, however, to have been 
 very rapidly matured, for at twelve years of age he was 
 found in the temple disputing with the doctors. Here, 
 this is om- position : that the second Adam came by the 
 
192 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing the Yirgin 
 Mary. Here is our God-man — here is our union of the 
 divine and the human nature together, in the person of 
 Jesus Christ, never to be separated permanently. Now, 
 when my brother says we have given up anything of 
 this subject, let it rest in the mind of the audience, the 
 conviction that nothing has been given up. Here, seve- 
 ral quotations made from authors by my good friend, 
 were certainly balanced by those I presented. I notice 
 that some of those to whom reference has been made 
 wrote as early as the year 107. This did not give very 
 much time tor any serious departure from the true faith, 
 for John had almost lived to see this period, (Poly- 
 carp reached this period, saw and conversed with John), 
 and was one of the early candidates for martyrdom in 
 the Christian Church : hence, I notice, we have here the 
 doctrine clearly set forth, showing the equality of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, constituting the one true 
 God of the Bible. However many conflicting authors 
 he may have brought forward on Eloliim^ at least some 
 respectable authorities state that this word stands in a 
 plural form, and not in the singular, and the term should 
 be rendered Gods, not God — at the same time, it does 
 apply to one living and true God. Hence, we have 
 here, in the person of Jesus Christ, not only equality 
 with the Father and the Holy Ghost, but his omnipo- 
 tence ; for he asserted, " All power in heaven and earth 
 is given into my hands ; I have power to lay down my 
 life, and I have power to take it again." We notice 
 also, that the attribute of omniscience was given Christ — 
 " that he knew all things," is the language of Peter. 
 This point seems sufficiently clear — " Lord, thou knowest 
 all things ; thou knowest that I love thee," The omni- 
 science of Christ is also made to appear. In connection 
 with this, we may infer that he is omnipotent. Three 
 passages bearing upon this, my brother has dodged, or 
 in feeble language attacked them, as he calls it. "Where- 
 ever two or three are gathered together in my name, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 193 
 
 there am I in the midst of them." This involves the 
 obligation of Christ to be in every place. He says that 
 he might be in dilferent places at the same time, and 
 not be omnipresent. I know not how he will make this 
 appear. I can very easily conceive how he could be in 
 an infinite number of given places at the same' time, as 
 well as I could understand his presence in a limited 
 number. If he allows the fact of his being in more than 
 one place at the same time, the omnipresence of Jesus 
 Christ is admitted. I assumed, if he could be in more 
 than one place, he might be in every place at the same 
 time ; and hence he nmst be omnipresent. This point 
 will be strengthened by other testimony. I want to 
 point out to you that which has been allowed — that he 
 may be in many places at the same time. I am happy 
 for this admission ; if it were not so, he would not be 
 an all-sufficient Saviour; if otherwise, he could not 
 render succor in the hour of need — as ''Where two or 
 three are gathered together in his name, there am I 
 (says Christ) in the midst of them for he pervades the 
 universe, he occupies and pervades immensity with his 
 spiritual presence, and is capable of being everywhere 
 to supply the wants and necessities of those who wor- 
 ship him in spirit and in truth. And I say to you, in 
 conclusion, hold on to the doctrine of your Christ, the 
 Father and God ; it is your only hope of salvation ; it 
 is your only hope of succor amid all the trials and ills 
 of life. I do this, in opposition to my brother's invita- 
 tion, to come over and deliver up your faith to him. 
 Why does he desire us to come over and join his ranks ? 
 Is it the wish for our assistance ? Until orthodoxy 
 trembles more under the giant tread of my brother, I 
 shall certainly be found somewhere clinging about this 
 old doctrine, taught by the evangelists, asserted by the 
 apostles, proclaimed by Christ, sustained by the apos- 
 tles — this doctrine, supported by the true Church of the 
 living God in all ages of the world. I shall certainly 
 not abandon my faith : notwithstanding all the appealing 
 17 
 
194 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 exhortations of my brother, it is the doctrine upon which 
 all my hopes for time and for eternity are suspended. 
 On them I trust in life and in death. The heavenly 
 record tells me those everlasting arms shall be under- 
 neath me; and the same arms that sustain the pillars of 
 the universe, they are the same arms that are underneath 
 the everlasting throne — the arm of omnipotence; and 
 upon this will I hang my hopes of salvation, and not 
 upon any arm of a being inferior to God, the Father. 
 
 Mr. Sumiviekbell's Thirteenth address : 
 
 Kind friends — During the discussion here I have been 
 placed upon the affirmative of a negative proposition, to 
 discuss the truthfulness of the Trinity. My faith is not 
 the question. It is not, therefore, my duty to affirm it, 
 although I did so to some extent. 1 do not, however, wish 
 you to be unacquainted with our principles. We receive 
 the Bible as a full and complete rule of faith and practice, 
 the only one authorized by God, or received by the apos- 
 tolic church : all-sufficient to make the man of God per- 
 fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works — wise 
 unto salvation. We hold that " unto us there is but one 
 God the Father, of whom are all things and w^e in him ; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and 
 we by him. We do not divide God into persons, nor 
 parts. To us he is ever One, Infinite, Eternal, and Un- 
 changeable, always God ; never a priest or mediator, but 
 for ever God. We believe that Jesus Christ is His Son, 
 and was His Son before angels or men existed ; the first 
 begotten, first-born, only-begotten, the only Son — the Son 
 of the living God — by whom He made, saves, and will 
 judge the world. Not a mere man, or "very man," 
 like my brother ; for how could such a One be the Son 
 of God by whom God made the worlds ? We believe in 
 repentance, faith, hope, and charity ; in conversion, the 
 new birth, justification. We believe in the atonement, 
 sanctification, and holiness of life. We think that to 
 be a Christian, is, not to obey the doctrines and com- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 195 
 
 mandments of men, but to be like Christ ; to speak like 
 him, think like him, feel like him, and act like him ; to 
 practise his religion and be conformed to his image. 
 Such was the religion of the Apostolic church ; and such 
 is ours. A religion, not got up by men, but revealed 
 from heaven. 
 
 My brother says, that I admitted, in a private conver- 
 sation, that the literary world was on his side. If this 
 was done in o. private conversation, it was not courteous 
 in him to use it in public. But I think not. I said the 
 literature of the world ; and you all know what we, 
 ministers of the Gospel, think of it. I do not, however, 
 admit that the really literary men of the world are on 
 his side. I claim first, all the eminent Christian fa- 
 thers for the first three centuries. I claim all the oldest 
 church historians on my side. Neander will testify that 
 the Trinity was not a fundamental doctrine of the Chris- 
 tian church ; and that the anti-Nicene church held the 
 subordination of the Son ; and Barnes plainly repudiates 
 the Nicene creed as anti-Trinitarian. My brother can 
 not find a man in the Christian church, as early as Poly- 
 carp, who ever used the word Trinity. Trinitarians are 
 dependent upon Eusebius, whom they call an Arian, for 
 the history of the primitive church. All through the 
 dark ages, and in the Reformation, the most learned men 
 in the world held our views. Dr. Samuel Clarke, and 
 many others of the most learned bishops of the Church 
 of England, denied the equality of the Son, as testified 
 byMosheim. O, no! I can not give up such men as 
 Whiston, and Sir Isaac Kewton, and Locke, and Milton, 
 and Isaac Watts, the sweet poet ; who repented writing 
 those doxologies to the Trinity, and would have destroyed 
 them had he not sold the copyright of his book. I wdll 
 not give up such men as these — the true literary men of 
 the world; men who could not cramp their intellects 
 into the absurd idea, that one side of a triangle is equal 
 to its three sides, on the word of Athanasius, nor even 
 the authority of a human creed. 
 
196 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITT. 
 
 My brother says, they were baptized in the name of 
 the Holy Ghost, and with fire ; but the Bible does not 
 say so, and I choose to believe the Bible. But he bap- 
 tizes in the name of the Son, not "Koyo^ ; and how would 
 it read to say they were baptized in the name of the 
 Father, and of a creature, and of the Holy Ghost ? Yet 
 my brother believes that the Son of God is a creature, 
 only 1800 years old. John xiii, 3, Jesus knowing that 
 the Father had given all things into his hands, and that 
 he was come y/'o;?z God, and went to God," he says that 
 he can not believe as it stands literally. If he can not 
 believe it as it stands, I wish him to explain what he 
 does believe. 
 
 Jesus says, " I came out from the Father: I came down 
 from heaven, not to do mine own will." God sent his 
 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. God gave his Son — 
 sent his Son. He who thought it not robbery to be equal 
 with, or like God, made himself of no reputation, and 
 became obedient to death." Who was this ? He says, 
 that " he came out from God." I want my brother to 
 explain. 
 
 Luke i, 35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," 
 &c. " Therefore, that Holy thing which shall be born of 
 thee, shall be called the Son of God." My brother made 
 a great mistake here. He says, that the Holy Ghost 
 must be a person, as truly as the Father is a person ; for 
 the Holy Ghost begat Christ ; and it says in another 
 place that the Father begat Christ, &c. He holds that 
 the Father is the first person, and that the Holy Ghost is 
 the third person, distinct from the Father — independent 
 and distinct persons ; and the Athanasian creed says, that 
 if we confound the persons, without doubt we shall 
 perish everlastingly. 
 
 Now my brother has shown that the Holy Ghost, the 
 third person, begat Jesus, and that the Father, the first 
 person, begat him (Jesus). So that according to his 
 theory two persons begat Jesus. Jesus has two fathers ! 
 And this is a just conclusion, if the Trinity be true ! But 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 19T 
 
 that which was born of the Virgin was not simply man. 
 John i, 14, The Word — which was in the beginning 
 with God — was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we 
 beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of 
 the Father, full of grace and truth. He now challenges 
 me to prove that he denied the eternity of the Son, 
 and most positively affirms that he did not. Very well ! 
 I read in Clarke, " If Christ be the Son of God, as to his 
 divine nature, then the Father is prior and superior; the 
 phrase Eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction, absurd 
 and dangerous ;" and you well remember that he then 
 said, that he did not believe that the Son was eternal, and 
 apologized for differing from Watson. 
 
 He now thinks as Jesus was the Son of Abraham and the 
 Son of David, &c., that he must be " very man," simply 
 human, because he must partake of their nature, as the 
 child is a partaker of its parents' nature. But the " Hu- 
 manity," was not born in the ordinary manner of gener- 
 ation, but was begotten of the Great Father, God ! So 
 on his own principles of interpretation, it could not be 
 " very man," simple humanity ; for, since it would par- 
 take of its Father's nature, it must be part divine. Here 
 his very man idea is destroyed. Now, my brother, do 
 not back out again. Come right on, and as fast as you 
 see your error, forsake it. He says, that God produced 
 a perfect human being just like Adam — just as good as 
 Adam, and just as human. This is truly very compli- 
 mentary to the Lord Jesus Christ. He has just been 
 trying to prove him equal to God ; and now he is trying to 
 prove that he is equal to Adam — as good as Adam ! Jesus 
 Christ is greater and possesses more virtue than Adam 
 and all the children of Adam that ever lived. Equal to 
 Adam! Paul says, in 1 Cor. xv, 45-47, " The first Adam 
 was of the earth, earthy; the second Adam (Christ) is 
 the Lord from heaven." Does this make them just 
 equal ? He says that the second person in the Trinity 
 entered the world as a helpless infant ; but that he (that 
 is, the second person,) rapidly improved and matured in 
 
198 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 his mental and physical faculties. That is, God was a 
 helpless infant — God improved and matured I ! ! (fee. This 
 seems to require some further explanation, for my brother 
 has several times denied it. We wait his reply. In the 
 heat of my brothers argument he maintained, that as 
 Polycarp lived almost in the time of the apostles, his 
 testimony must be good for the Trinity. But he did not 
 read him. but read from Justin Martyr, who is given up 
 as an Arian by Hawies, the Trinitarian and historian. 
 My brother will find no Trinity in Polycarp. He says 
 that he has some respectable authorities on his side for 
 Elohim. But what authority can he have? All the 
 principal authorities are on my side. Let him bring 
 them forward, and we will see what they say. 
 
 He quotes that Christ will be wherever two or three 
 are assembled in his name, and says, that " any person 
 who can be in more than one place at a time, must be 
 omnipresent." But Paul says, Colossians ii, 5, " Though 
 I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, 
 joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness 
 of your faith in Christ ;" and 1 Cor. v, 3, " I also as 
 absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged alrea- 
 dy." So Christ, while absent in body, is present in spirit. 
 Was Paul omnipresent ? I suppose that my brother 
 can explain these passages away ; he can explain away 
 just what he wants away, and leave what he wants to 
 leave, and he could explain the others just as well, if he 
 wished. 
 
 My brother makes no attempt to explain my argument 
 on the pei-sonal pronouns in the singular number, applied 
 to God, viz : I. Me, My, Thou, Thee, Thy, &c. /am God, 
 and beside 3Ie. This /and Jfe, are only one person ; 
 yet, this one person says I am God, and beside Jle there 
 is none else. This being but one person, thus destroys 
 the Trinity, since it says that no person but one is God. 
 If three persons were all God, it would be We, Oicr, Us, 
 You, Yours, Them, They, &c. If my brother were right, 
 it would read, We are God, and beside us there is no 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 199 
 
 God. God is three. The Lord our God, is three Lords. 
 But for such doctrine, he must go to the creeds and dox- 
 ologies. I want my brother to define what he means by 
 three persons. What does personality mean ? What 
 person is there that is not a being ? And how can a per- 
 son exist without being ? And who told him that the 
 three persons in the Trinity, were not three beings ? and 
 why, if his views be really orthodox, nothing is said 
 about them in the Bible ? Let my brother explain Mark 
 xiii, 32, and tell us why the Son did not know ? Matt, 
 xxiv, 26, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Father only ? Lie 
 has not yet answered, whether he that took the book out 
 of the right hand of him that sat upo^ the throne, Eev. v, 
 is the same being who sat upon the throne ? Let him 
 answer this. 
 
 Now comes his authority on Elohim. He appealed to 
 Watson, to prove that the text should be translated, " In 
 the beginning the Gods created the heavens, and the 
 earth." Well! this proves it, providing the authority 
 can be depended upon. And what then ? Why, my 
 brother now has three Gods, or why does he quote such 
 authority ? why prove it, if he does not believe it ? He 
 says that there are three persons in the Godhead ; but 
 Watson says Gods.''^ My brother may say that they 
 are not Gods, but are they not three infinite persons ? 
 He says that they are not Gods, simply, because the 
 Bible says that there is but one God. But if he proves 
 three Gods, then the Bible stands corrected by his theory. 
 ''They say, Jehovah the Gods." " In the beginning the 
 Gods." Now if this is not true, w^hy does he quote it, and 
 call it authority ? He sa3'S that three infinite beings 
 could not exist, &c.; but they could exist just as well as 
 three infinite persons, personality always includes being. 
 There is no difierence whatever between persons and^ 
 beings. What is a person, is a being. There is not a 
 solitary reason which can be urged against three infinite 
 beings, which is not just as strong against three infinite 
 persons. If three persons are each infinite, then they are 
 
200 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 all Gods. If they are equal in substance, substance 
 must include being, hence three beiugs — three Gods ; 
 but if they are not substances, then they are nothing. 
 Each of the three possessing equal power, equal glory, 
 equal eternity, there must be, b}^ his own showing, three 
 Gods. Three persons all omnipotent. Three persons 
 all omnipresent. Three persons all omniscient. Three 
 persons each of whom had all the infinite attributes, must 
 be three Gods. I demand of my brother, if his three per- 
 sons are not three Gods, to tell what would constitute them 
 three Gods ? What do they lack ? What would be three 
 Gods, if they are not ? What three are they, if they are 
 not three Gods ? My friends, the only way to be con- 
 sistent, is to abandon your favorite theory. Abandon 
 your creed (Constitution and Discipline). Tliis you may 
 safely do, for it has only earthly authority, and although 
 he exhorts you to stick to it as your only liope^ don't you 
 believe it. Thousands were saved before any such Dis- 
 cipline was thought of in the world, and thousands are 
 now saved who do not believe in it ; yea, happy am I that 
 my brother's salvation does not depend upon his faith 
 in it. 
 
 My brother is not satisfied that EloJiim should be ren- 
 dered God, but is sure that it should be " Gods !" but 
 my friends, Clarke himself, when the Trinity is not to be 
 supported, consents that it should be translated God. On 
 Gen. iii, 5, " Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be 
 as Gods," Clarke says : Your understandings shall be 
 greatly enlightened and improved, and ye shall be as 
 Gods, D^n7«3 lie EloMm^ ' like God,' so the word should 
 be translated, for what idea could our first parents have 
 of Gods." — Clarke's Notes on Genesis iii, 5. 
 
 In Acts vii, 59, "They stoned Stephen calling upon 
 God, and saying. Lord Jesus receive my spirit." The 
 word God is supplied by the translators. Neither Cole- 
 ridge nor Locke, think that this was properly prayer, 
 since Jesus was visible. Whether it was or not, is not 
 material to the question, as long as my brother admits 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITT. 
 
 201 
 
 Rev. i, 4. is an invocation for grace, from the seven 
 angels! Coleridge was a Trinitarian. Locke I quote, 
 simply, as a great scholar and Christian philosopher ; but 
 not as authority, since he belongs to my side of the house, 
 on this question. His opinion on Komans ix, 5, '* Christ 
 came, who is o^r all God blessed forever," is, that, it 
 should be rendered, Christ came, who is over all ; God 
 be blessed forever. 1 wish to quote none, but the first 
 class of authors. Coleridge, on Mark xiii, 32, says : This 
 most difficult text I have not seen satisfactorily ex- 
 plained.'' — Lit. Kemains iv, 219-20. He rejects the 
 two-nature scheme. 
 
 I want this congregation to remember, that my brother 
 has not, in the three days' debate, confessed that he would 
 worship the Jesus that died for him. He will worship 
 the Divine nature that was in him, but the Divine nature, 
 he holds, could not suffer or die, and was not that person 
 that was begotten and could, and did suffer and die. He 
 will worship the God that Jesus prayed to, and so will 
 Socinians ; but the man of sorrows, the suffering Jesus, 
 whose sweat falls to the ground as great drops of blood, 
 that Jesus who said, my soul is exceedingly sorrowful 
 even unto death, and whom the angel strengthened, he 
 will not woiship, because he says, he is a creature, and it 
 would be idolatry. He will worship him as God, that is, 
 he will worship the God who dwelt in him ; for if he 
 means he will woi*ship the very man, as God, he has 
 decided that to be idolatry. Look at him, my brother. 
 Look at that brow pierced with thorns. Ah ! you reply, 
 that is a human brow, I can not worship it. Look at that 
 back, scourged and bleeding. Ah ! you reply, that is 
 the back of a man, I can not worship that. Look at the 
 face, all marred by blows, torn by plucking off the hair 
 and defiled by spitting, and those eyes all blinded by 
 clotted gore ; but you will not worship the sufierer ; you 
 esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted ; you 
 will worship the God that supported him. So did the 
 Jews, who rejected him. Look at the cross, and an- 
 
202 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 swer what is the nature of that body. The answer is, 
 that that is a human body. Look at those outstretched, 
 bleeding hands and feet ; see where the cruel iron pierced 
 them, and tell me the nature of those hands ; but he says 
 that they are human hands. Look at those eyes, beam- 
 ing with compassion for his enemies — see the look of 
 anguish and sorrow cast upon Peter ; but still the answer 
 is, they are created eyes. The lips they touch with gall 
 are created lips. The voice that said Father, forgive, was 
 a creature's voice. Hear him cry, My God, my God, why 
 hast thou forsaken me ? Ah ! cries my brother, that is 
 what I worship — the God that forsook him ; but I can 
 not worship the forsaken — the Lamb slain — the very 
 man — the creature. God can not sufier. God can not 
 die, and he will not worship that which can. The bleed- 
 ing, groaning, dying, he will not worship. The suffering 
 Jesus, the Lamb slain, worshiped by angels, is rejected as 
 a creature unworthy of worship by Trinitarians. My 
 friends, worship Jesus. Worship him as the Son of God. 
 Worship him as the Lamb slain ; so the saints and angels 
 in heaven worship God and the Lamb. Those are idola- 
 ters, not who worship the Son as the Son of God^ but 
 who worship others as God, beside the one true and living 
 God — who honor the creature more than the Creator I 
 who have other gods beside him who said, beside Me 
 there is no God ? Let my brother explain. If he wor- 
 ships his God's body as God, then he worships a creature. 
 If he rejects it, then he does not worship all of his God. 
 If he worships Jesus' human nature as God, then he 
 worships a creature as God, and according to his own 
 logic, is an idolater ; while, if he rejects it, as he must, 
 then he only worships a part of his Jesus, viz : the Divine 
 nature that dwelt in him. We, says the apostle, are 
 partakers of the Divine nature, but that natui*e is not us. 
 
 Me. Flood's Thirteenth reply ; 
 
 I am quite gratified, in one particular, at the sobriety 
 of my good brother's spirit. He enters calmly on the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 203 
 
 discussion. This is very gratifying. I advanced an argu- 
 ment from Dr. Watson, on the word Eloliim^ which in 
 Genesis i, stands in the plural form — a plurality of per- 
 sons existing in the Godliead. This position is sustained 
 by Dr. Clarke, in an extensive view of the subject. Tie 
 presents it in a critical manner, showing, that as the root 
 of this word is not to be found in the original Hebrew, it 
 must be traced to its verb, and that verb must be found 
 in the Arabic. And here it is found connected with its 
 genitive, subjoined to verbs and pronouns in the plural. 
 He then presents a number of passages, which I will 
 quote to my brother, to direct his attention to them, so 
 that he may investigate this subject further. 
 
 Clarke on Gen. i. "The original word Elohim, God, has 
 long been supported by the most eminently learned and 
 pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the Divine 
 nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the 
 Sacred writings to be confined to three persons, hence the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, which has formed a part of the 
 creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the 
 faith from the earliest ages of Christianity. He must be 
 strangely prejudiced, indeed, who can not see that the 
 doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is clearly 
 
 ted, being joined in the singular number with this plural 
 noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not 
 obscurely, the unity of the Divine ])ersons in this work 
 of creation, in the ever blessed Trinity : from the infinite 
 and indivisible unity of the persons, there can bo but one 
 will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable 
 energy. Let those who have any doubt whether Elohim^ 
 when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, 
 consult the following passages, where they will find it 
 joined with adjectives, verbs,*and pronouns plural : Gen. 
 i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 7, 53; xxxv, 7; Deut. iv, 
 7;v, 23; Josh, xiv, 19; iSam.iv, 8; 2 Sam. vii, 23; Ps. 
 lviii,12; Is.vi, 8; Jer.x, 10; xxiii, 56; Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3; 
 Ps. cxlix, 2; Ec. v,7; xii, 1; Job v, 1; Is. vi,3; Ixiv, 5; Is. Ixii, 
 5; Hos. xi, 12; xii, 1; Mat. i, 6; Dan. v. 3 ^ 
 
 The verb hara^ he crea- 
 
204 
 
 DSSCUSSIOX ox THE TRIXITT. 
 
 In all ot these passages, numberinor about thirty, the 
 word stands in this form, and the brother will have an 
 opportunity for a very learned investigation of this word 
 Elohim. But I insist, however, that it should be so ren- 
 dered. " It makes more Gods than one,*' but our learned 
 author does not think so. My brother thinks where God 
 speaks thus, he says that the personal pronoun "I" 
 should be changed to ** we." Xow this language does 
 occur, and it is strange, that if he has read the first chap- 
 ter of Genesis, he has not noticed where it is said, ** let us 
 make man;'" the projxjsition is the result of his own 
 choice. He says tliat the literary woi^d and the litera- 
 ture of the world is on my side, and he expresses an 
 anxiety that it should be on his. I have been waiting 
 for and expecting an authority of his own, on the Divinity ; 
 he makes reference to none. He claims Dr. Locke as one 
 of their authorities, but does not seem to rely much uix)n 
 him, because he thinks it would be ex parte testimony. 
 It would be interesting to have some authorities, at least, 
 from his party. He is quoting orthodox authors, in 
 which there seems to be confirmation of his views. They 
 must be garbled statements of the authors' meaning, if 
 taken from authors whose opinions — 
 
 SuMMEEBELL. — I ask if it is wrong to quote his authors, 
 and if the quotations I have given have been garbled ? 
 I appeal to the Moderatoi-s. 
 
 Flood. — I did not say that he garbled them : but it 
 would be noticed, in making quotations from Trinitarian 
 authors, that they must be garbled or imperfect views of 
 the author. 
 
 MoDERATOKS. — Our opiuiou, in regard to this matter, 
 is that brother Summerbell has a perfect right, in all 
 conscience, to select Trinitarian authors, and prove his 
 position. At the same time, as these authors are ac- 
 knowledged Trinitarians, if they prove anything else 
 but the Trinity, these extracts must be taken out of their 
 regular course. 
 
 SuMMEEBELL. — I quotc them to explain certain texts, to 
 show that they have given up those texts. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 205 
 
 Moderators. — I should like to remark, as Elder Sum- 
 merbell is placed in the affirmative, he has a right to 
 introduce any testhnony he thinks proper, to sustain his 
 proposition, namely, that the creed of his opponent is 
 unscriptural ; hence, we decide, that he has a right to in- 
 troduce this testimony. 
 
 Flood. — I have not yet disputed Mr. SummerbelPs 
 right to introduce these texts ; I have never once ques- 
 tioned his right. 
 
 Moderators. — Perhaps it would be as well to introduce 
 a word equally strong, but not quite so harsh. 
 
 Flood. — Is" not the word garbled a correct word, ex- 
 pressing a pervei'sion of the author's meaning ? 
 
 SuMMERBELL. — He, says my brother, garbled ; and if he 
 means what he says let him prove it. 
 
 Flood. — I presume my brother felt he had need of 
 this, but I am not disconcerted, hence I shall proceed 
 with the argument ; I shall quote an authority upon which 
 I founded my remarks, as to the begetting of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, "And the angel answered and said unto 
 her, the power of the Ilighest," &c. Now my friend ad- 
 mits, in his whole argument, that the highest is God. 
 lie states that I denied the Son of God was eternal. 
 Now I wish my brother would not misrepresent me. I 
 now state emphatically, I never denied any such thing ; 
 I have asserted, time and again, that the Son of God was 
 eternal ; but it was improper to say that he was the eter- 
 nal Son of God ; • but how can you reconcile them ? He 
 existed not as the Son, but existed in the capacity of 
 the Word or Logos, and was designated as the Son of 
 God, begotten of the Father ; hence he is eternal in his 
 existence as God ; but not the eternal Son of God ; yet the 
 Son of God is eternal, if man as begotten of the Father is 
 eternal. All the quibbling that may be had over this, I 
 am willing that my brother should have the benefit of it, 
 80 long as his book shall live and liourish among the litera- 
 ture of the world ; and it is hoped it may flourish for my 
 
206 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 sake. He has insisted again and again, that I am not 
 coming up with him — I conceived myself to be far in ad- 
 vance ; but he shouts, Come on ! Come on ! This would 
 be encouraging to a man who was about to faint by the 
 way — who was enfeebled under the strokes of the enemy — 
 to assume a good feeling toward him, to one wliom I had 
 rendered infirm, to say, Come on. Well now, under all 
 of these considerations your humble servant has not yet 
 been able to make the discovery. I thought he was con- 
 scious that I was somewhere in his neighborhood with my 
 gloves ofi*, and I was therefore surprised at his invitation 
 to "Come on." I am already on, and I calculate to try, 
 with the blessing of God, to he on all the time. Two or 
 three passages I shall pass, and notice some other points 
 to which he has invited attention ; the first is that which 
 relates to the knowledge of Christ being limited, "Of 
 that day and hour knoweth no man," &c. 
 
 We will give the brother a few references : Isaiah ii, 2 ; 
 Matt, ix, 4 ; xii, 25 ; Luke ix, 47 ; Mark ii, 8 ; Luke vii, 
 39, 40 ; John ii, 24, 25 ; vi, 64 ; xiv ; Acts i, 24 ; 1 Cor. 
 iv, 5 ; Heb. iv, 12 ; Kev. xix, 15 ; ii, 23; Luke ii, 40 ; 
 Col. ii, 3. 
 
 We will now quote first, John v, 20, " And we know 
 that the Son of God is come and hath given us an under- 
 standing, that we may know him that is true ; and we 
 are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ ; this 
 is the true God and eternal life," in support of the truth, 
 that Jesus Christ is the true God. You recollect yester- 
 day, this subject was addi^ssed to our consideration, that 
 Jesus Christ was the true God ; I will quote here the lan- 
 guage of Clarke on this passage. 
 
 Clarke, 1 John v, 20, " And 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, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
 God and eternal life." (" We hioio that the Son of God 
 is come^') in the flesh, and has made his soul an offering 
 for sin, and hath given us an understanding, a more 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 207 
 
 eminent degree of light than we ever enjoyed before, for 
 as he lay in the bosoin of the Father, he hath declared 
 him unto us, and he hath beside given us a spiritual un- 
 dei-standing, that we may know him who is true, even 
 the true God, and get eternal life from him through his 
 Son, in whom we are by faith, as the branches in the 
 vine, deriving all our knowledge, light, life, love and 
 fruitfulness from him. And it is through this revelation 
 of Jesus, that we know the ever blessed and glorious 
 Trinity, and the Trinity Father, Word and Holy Ghost, 
 in the eternal undivided unity of the ineffable Godhead." 
 
 This language of Clarke will hardly admit, that if he 
 were an honest man, that he could distinctly give counte- 
 nance to a doctrine that would contradict it, and Dr. 
 Clarke nowhere intended to give countenance to that 
 which would support the contrary doctrine. Tlie lan- 
 guage of John, here, is so pointed and clear, it will not 
 possibly admit of a misunderstanding, " We know him, 
 and he is true — this is the trae God," &c. Now Christ 
 declared to his disciples, that he would give unto them 
 eternal life, and promises that he will be to them the 
 author of eternal life. John vi, 27, " Labor not for the 
 meat that perisheth," (fee. It is by right of his authority 
 to confer eternal life upon his servants. My brother 
 quotes several passages, Eccles. ii, 12 ; Isaiah i, 3 ; ix, 
 6, and I really was surprised when my good brother di- 
 rected his attention to Isaiah ix, 6, " his name shall be 
 called God,-' &c.; and then had he made a quotation 
 showing the power and authority with which he was in- 
 vested, as the supreme almighty ruler of universal em- 
 pire ; and if he be, it is his right, as self-existing and 
 eternal God, to rule. 
 
 My brother, by conferring almighty power upon the Son, 
 and claiming that it is not original, does he know that it 
 is communicated from its original author, and the original 
 author thereby divests himself of omnipotence, and ceases 
 to possess it, he subjects himself to the will of him by 
 whom this almighty power was conferred ; and such will 
 
208 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 be the end and conclusion drawn from the premises, in 
 whichever light my brother may see proper to place it ? 
 Child born the Son of God ! I am sorry the whole world 
 has not learned this truth. His name shall be called 
 Wonderful ; therefore his name shall be called the Son 
 of God. And now I prove from the authority of Isaiah, 
 that he shall be called not only the Son of God, but that 
 every attestation is given of his power and Godhead, 
 the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God ; here is a 
 reference to his almighty power, as God ; this same is the 
 child born, the Son of God. 
 
 When such deeply interesting events take place, for 
 the benevolent purpose of the redemption of our race, it 
 is not wonderful that a strange phenomenon should 
 appear in the heavens ; that a new star should be seen, 
 and attract the attention of the wise men, devoted to the 
 important purpose of a light to point out to them the 
 place where the young child was, and when it came to 
 the spot, it reverently paused in the heavens above, and 
 pointed out the resting-place of the babe, the promised 
 Messiah, the redeeming God of our perishing world : that 
 it should, by this act, point to him, was but befitting the 
 important occasion ; ere the instant reverence inspired 
 the mind with devotion for this strange personage, 
 gifts were poured out, and acts of devotion joined in 
 announcing with the songs of angels, his introduction 
 as the Redeemer of man, for they sang " Glory to God, 
 in the highest, on earth, peace and good-will to men." 
 Thanks be to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 for this divine intelligence. Unto you is born this day, 
 in the city of David, a Christ ; how shall he do it — by 
 the power of Michael, Gabriel, by the power of man ? No! 
 He shall lay down the price of redemption and redeem 
 man ; it is the price of a perfect human nature, united with 
 the power of the omnipotent ; he shall redeem men by price 
 and by power ; the captain of our salvation has appeared, 
 and become a sacrifice unto the law of ceremonies for 
 righteousness ; and hence, we have pointed out this event 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 209 
 
 referred to by Isaiah ; God says, when he bringeth his first 
 begotten into the world, let all the angels of God worship 
 him. I say, let all the earth worship him, for unto him 
 shall ever}^ knee bow, and tongue confess, that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. 
 
 Mr. Summekbell's Fourteenth address : 
 
 Mr. Summerbell said, I like the closing remarks of my 
 brother's speech, just as well as he, and if we were at a 
 revival meeting, I think that I would like them still 
 better. However, 1 can but briefly notice it. I like 
 these good religious addresses ; these expressions of pure, 
 and undefiled religion. I feel good under them. I want 
 my brother ever to enjoy this spirit, and never to get out 
 of the way. I rejoice that ours is a religion of the heart, 
 as well as the head. 
 
 He said that Jesus paid the price of our redemption. I 
 ask to whom did he pay this price ? Was it to God ? 
 So he seems to intimate. But I thought that he came to 
 redeem us TO God, not from God. My brother is con- 
 stantly relying on Trinitarians to prove his theory. Now, 
 what would you think of me, if 1 should gravely attempt 
 to pi'ove my position right, by Kincaid or some Unita- 
 rian authority { Yet, he objects to my using his authors 
 for proof; and says, that he does not like my calling 
 witnesses from his side of the house. Do you not see 
 that he accuses me wrongfully ? Who can be better tes- 
 timony for me, than my brother's own witnesses ? They 
 are my authority, and they are real authority. But he 
 says that I read only a part ; but how could I read their 
 whole works here ? It would take me seven years to 
 read all that they say on my side. Let my brother read 
 the rest. He says that it would be interesting to have 
 some authors on my side. I have very much wondered 
 that he had not, and more, at his bringing such piles of 
 books here, as he has done, day after day, and all Tri- 
 nitarian ! I wish he would bring some of our authors, 
 Eusebius, Sir Isaac Newton, John Locke, Milton, and 
 18 
 
210 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Others. His Trinitarian anthers are no authority on his 
 side in this discussion ; but they are good for me, for 
 when they give up a text, we know that it is because it 
 cannot be made to support the Trinity. My brother 
 seems to think that God has no power beyond the bounds 
 of heaven and earth ; but I think that his power extends 
 everywhere. I cannot limit omnipotence. God could 
 create ten thousand worlds, amid tlie outer darkness, in 
 the far off and uninhabited regions of infinite space, 
 where the remotest ray of the most distant star has never 
 penetrated, nor the eccentric comet ever visited ; and 
 people them with other races of intelligences, and light 
 them up with other suns. My brother's ideas of infinity 
 resemble those of a child, who supposes a mile an infi- 
 nite distance, because it is a good way, and the distant 
 hill top, the end of the world. There is power outside 
 of heaven and earth. But if Jesus was invested with all 
 power, did not some one give it to him ? That one is 
 the supreme God, of whom Paul says, 1 Cor. xv, " HE 
 hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, 
 all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE is 
 excepted, which did put all things under him. And 
 when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
 Son also himself be subject unto Ilim^ that put all things 
 under him, that God may be all in all." My brother 
 quotes 1 John v, 20, "And 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, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
 God and eternal life," and quotes Clarke to show that 
 Christ is this true God, as though Clarke was authority 
 against me. He is none whatever. I respect his learn- 
 ing, but he is not orthodox. Being a Methodist, and 
 acknowledged by my brother, he is authority for me 
 against him ; but none against me. Clarke is not my 
 interpreter. Macknight is better authority on this text, 
 for though he may not be so learned in oriental literature, 
 yet he was a better classical scholar, and more truly 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 211 
 
 orthodox. And Macknigbt agrees with me, that true God 
 refers to God, not to the Son. He says, (giving the 
 opinion of others approvingly) : " If the apostle by outos 
 means Jesus Christ, he maketh him the true God, not- 
 withstanding, in the sentence which immediately precedes 
 oxdos^ he distinguishes the true one from his Son Jesus 
 Christ." Also, now, although our translators have de- 
 stroyed that distinction, and have made Jesus Christ the 
 true God, by inserting the word even^ &c., they have in- 
 serted that word, without the authority of any ancient 
 MS., &c." John says that Jesus has given us the under- 
 standing, that we might know the only true God. This 
 understanding will be found John xvii, 1-3, "These 
 words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and 
 said, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy 
 Son may also glorify thee. As thou hast given him 
 power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to 
 as many as thou hast given him ; and this is life eternal, 
 that they might know THEE, the ONLY true God, and 
 Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent !" Here the Son, who 
 had glory with the Father before the world was, says that 
 his Father in one person is the only true God. 
 
 He quotes several texts to show that Jesus knew the 
 day and the hour of the end of the world, which he said, 
 he did not know. Mark xiii, 32. I must believe Jesus. 
 I could not feel that I honored Jesus, if I did not believe 
 him, and I do want to honor him. He acknowledges 
 that he does not believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of 
 God ! but that the human nature was the Son ; but let 
 that pass. He asserts that the Holy Ghost begat Christ, 
 and that tlie Father begat him. He thus destroys his 
 own theory, and proves that two persons begat Jesus of 
 the Virgin, and that he had two fathers ; he cannot cast 
 it ofi* the difficulty is in the theory of the Trinity. The 
 first person and the last person in the Trinity, both begat 
 the second person in the Trinity. So the third person in 
 the Trinity, is the Father of Christ. True, Luke says 
 that the Holy Ghost begat Christ, but Luke did not 
 believe that the Holy Ghost was a person. Luke was 
 
212 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 no Trinitarian. We believe that the Holy Ghost was 
 the power of the Highest, which overshadowed the Virgin, 
 (Luke i, 35), and not a distinct person. 
 
 I now desire yet, to present you with about one hundred 
 texts from Scripture, in proof that Jesus is the Son of 
 God, which I want my brother to explain. He has tried 
 similar texts and failed, but I hope he will try these. 
 
 Luke ii, 49, " I must be about my Father's business." 
 
 Matt, xi, 25, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
 and earth." 
 
 Matt, xi, 27, " All things are delivered unto me of my 
 Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father/' 
 
 Luke xxii, 42, " Father, if thou be willing, remove this 
 cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be 
 done." 
 
 John vi, 57, " I live by the Father." Surely this is 
 not self-existence ? 
 
 John XV, 1, "I am the ti'ue vine, and my Father is 
 the husbandman." 
 
 Matt. XX, 23, "Not mine to give, but it shall be given 
 to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." 
 
 Matt. XX vi, 53, " Thinkest thou that I can not pray to 
 my Father ?" 
 
 John V, 43, " I am come in my Father's name, and ye 
 receive me not." 
 
 John viii, 28, " As my Father hath taught me, I speak 
 these things." 
 
 John viii, 38, " I speak that which I have seen with 
 my Father," 
 
 John viii, 28, " My Father is greater than L" 
 
 John XX, 17, " I ascend to my Father and to your 
 Father, to my God and to your God." 
 
 Luke i, 32, "He shall be called the Son of the High- 
 est." Xot the Highest. 
 
 Matt, xvi, 16, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God." 
 
 Mark viii, 32, " Of that hour knoweth no man — not 
 the angels — neither the Son," "but the Father only." 
 Matt, xxiv, 30. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 213 
 
 Mark xiv, 61, " Thoii art the Christ, the Son of the 
 blessed." 
 
 John i, 18, " Only begotten Son who is in the bosom 
 of the Father." 
 
 John iii, 35. "The Father loveth the Son, and hath 
 given," &c. John v, 20. 
 
 John iii 36, He that believeth on the Son hath life." 
 
 John iii, 36, He that believeth not the Son, shall not 
 see life." 
 
 John V, 19, " The Son can do nothing of himself." 
 
 John V, 19, " Whatsoever things the Father doeth, 
 these doeth the Son." 
 
 John V, 21, ''As the Father quickeneth, &c., so the 
 Son quickeneth whom he will." 
 
 John V, 22, " The Father — hath committed all judg- 
 ment to the Son." 
 
 John V, 23, ''That all men should honor the Sou, even 
 as they honor the Father." 
 
 John V, 23, " He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth 
 not the Father." 
 
 John V, 26, " Father — hath given the Son to have life 
 in himself." 
 
 John vi, 40, " Every one that seeth the Son and be- 
 lieveth — hath everlasting life." 
 
 John viii, 35, '* Servant abideth not for ever, but the 
 Son abideth for ever." 
 
 John viii, 36, " If the Son therefore shall make you 
 free, you shall be free indeed." 
 
 John xiv, 13, " That the Father may be glorified in 
 the Son." 
 
 1 Cor. XV, 28, " Then shall the Son"— not the human 
 nature, but the Son to whom all things are subdued — 
 "deliver up the kingdom to him that put all things under 
 him, that God may be all in all." 
 
 John V, 25, '' The dead shall hear the voice of the 
 Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 
 
 John i, 19, '• Nathaniel said, thou art the Son of God." 
 
 Jno. i, 34, "John bare record that this is the Son of God." 
 
214 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITY. 
 
 Gal. i, 1, "Paul an apostle, not of man, neither by 
 man, but by Jesus Christ." 
 
 Gal. i, 11, " The Gospel preached by me is not after 
 man ; for I neither received it of men, neither was I 
 taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Rev. V, 3, " Xo man in heaven, nor in earth, neither 
 under the earth, was able to open the book." 
 
 Rev. V, 5, " Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah 
 hath prevailed to open the book." 
 
 Rev. V, 7, " And he came and took the book out of 
 the right hand of him that sat upon the throne." 
 
 By these texts you see, that Jesus is not a man, but a 
 being of heaven, whose Father is God. O, my friends, 
 where is the difficulty of believing that God has a Son ? 
 "Why can we not believe this great truth, this fundamen- 
 tal truth of the Christian religion ? God sent his Son 
 for our salvation, not a mere man as good as Adam. 
 
 My brother quotes texts, to show that we should honor 
 Christ, and that he has great power and glory. Why, 
 the Lord bless my brother, we believe all this. He can 
 never give Christ glOry enough. He is the Son of the 
 living God. Could you believe this, jon could see his 
 glory. If you can not believe it, just for a moment 
 imagine that the great Eternal One lias a Son, the bright- 
 ness of his glory, and the express image of his person, 
 who does all things to please the Father ; by whom, and 
 for whom, God created all things ; before whom, angels 
 bow in worship at the connnand of the Father ; and that 
 this Son left the throne of glory, for us and our sal- 
 vation, stooped to a world of sin and sorrow, and died 
 to redeem us ; would you think that we could honor him 
 enough ? As our King we should obey him ; as our 
 Priest we reverence him ; as our Saviour we adore him ; 
 but not independent of the Father, but we honor the Son 
 to the glory of God the Father. John saw a door opened 
 in heaven, and there, in the highest, brightest, mansion 
 in the universe, where the bright fields of eternal day 
 Bwell with untold millions of celestial spirits, hosts 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 215 
 
 rising above hosts, and legions rising above legions, there 
 is the mansion of the Deity. The innumerable hosts of 
 angels extend around in the vast circumference. Tlie 
 white-vested elders upon burnished thrones, shine like 
 stars in an inner circle. The four living creatures, the 
 mighty seraphim, with their unsleeping, universal eyes, 
 and burning wheels, and lightning velocity, come nearer 
 the center, where upon a great white throne, whose base 
 o'ertops the universe, sits One, whose head and hairs are 
 white like snow; whose vesture dipped in blood, is white 
 and glistering ; whose waist is girded with a golden gir- 
 dle ; whose feet are as fine brass burning in the fire ; 
 whose countenance is as the sun shining in his strength ; 
 whose eyes are as a flame of fire ; whose voice is as the 
 sound of many waters ; who holds the seven stars in his 
 right hand ; while he walks in the midst of the golden 
 candlesticks ; out of his mouth proceedetli a sharp two- 
 edged sword ; upon his head are many crowns, and upon 
 his thigh, the name written, KING OF KINGS, AND 
 LORD OF LORDS. His plastic hand created the tall- 
 est angels ; his moulding power formed the worlds of 
 glory ; his precious blood redeems our race of sinners, 
 and his eternal fiat shall judge the universe. And yet 
 this is not the first Great Cause ? This is the Son seated 
 at the right hand of the great eternal, unseen, invisible 
 one, whom no man hath seen nor can see ; and when the 
 celestial choir, in loud thunders sound the praise of 
 heaven, they sing, " Great and marvelous are thy works, 
 Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou 
 King of saints." My brother, you may stretch your 
 imagination to its utmost bounds, and you can never give 
 him glory enough. The high seraphs of heaven fall 
 down before him, and hide their faces in his presence ; 
 then how shall I honor him enough, or love him enough? 
 Let us then praise him for evermore, with all our ran- 
 somed powers. 
 
 But my brother has no such Son of God : his Son of 
 God is but eighteen hundred years old — the " very man," 
 
216 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 not the pre-existent one. But there was a Son of God 
 before the Virgin Mary existed. 
 
 Psalms ii, 7, God says to him, "Thou art my Son : this 
 day have I be.ojotten thee ; ask of me and I will give thee 
 the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for thy possession." Now this great power 
 is not to be entrusted to a mere man, but to the pre- 
 existent Son of God. 
 
 Frov. XXX, 4, " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or 
 descended ? who hath gathered the wind in his fist V 
 " What is his name, and what is his So7i^s name, if thou 
 canst tell." Here we are taught that there was a Son 
 of God during the Old Testament dispensation. 
 
 Dan. iii, 25. "Lo, said Nebuchadnezzar, I see four 
 men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they 
 have no hurt ; and the form of the fourth is like the SON 
 of God." 
 
 Gen. i, 26. "God said, Let us make man." And I 
 doubt not but Paul spoke in reference to this very agency, 
 when he said, Heb. i, 1-3, " God, who in sundry times 
 and divers manners, spoke in times past unto the fathers 
 by the prophets, hath, in these last times, spoken unto 
 us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things; 
 by whom, also, he made the worlds." 
 
 Now, on my brother's theory, God could not have 
 created the worlds by his Son ; for he thinks that he had 
 no Son until the miraculous conception. But these texts 
 prove that there was a Son of God before he was born in 
 the flesh. Now let my brother attack this difiiculty, and 
 remove it if he is able. Again, Jesus says, " My father 
 is greater than I." Now, how is the Father greater than 
 the Son, if the Son is in all things equal ? And if he 
 is not in all things equal, then he is not absolutely equal, 
 but only equal in some things. Or were there two 
 Christs, one of whom was equal with God, and one of 
 whom was not ? He says, that there were two natures, 
 but these two natures are two beings — very God and 
 very man. Two persons, I the God, and I the man. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 21T 
 
 Two intelligences — two powers — two existences; one 
 thirty years old, the other eternal. One knew all ; the 
 other only part. One could do all ; the other could do 
 nothing of himself. The truth is, there were not two 
 persons in Christ, but one. Christ is not divided. He is 
 one Son of God. In the parable of the vineyard, Mark 
 xii, 6, it says, that " having yet, therefore, one Son, his 
 well-beloved, he sent him last unto them, saying, they 
 will reverence my Son." 
 
 Where is the force of this passage on my brother's 
 theory, that the Son was not divine but a mere creature — 
 one of the husbandmen to whom the Lord of the vine- 
 yard united himself? Such is not the truth. But Rom. 
 viii, 32, " God spared not his own Son, but delivered 
 him up for us all." Oh! my dear brother, you must 
 feel the weight of these Scriptures. God had a Son be- 
 fore the world was. That Son had glory with the Father 
 before the world was. That Son came down from heaven, 
 not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him. 
 Oh ! my dear friends ! think not lightly of denying the 
 Son of God. How otten is faith, on this point, set forth 
 in God's Word. This is the foundation of all our hope. 
 Oh ! that you would realize that it is a great thing, that 
 God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, 
 but have everlasting life ; but there is no such display of 
 love in the gift of a mere man, or " very man." 
 
 Mr. Flood's Fourteenth reply : 
 
 I feel gratified that I am still growing in the estimation 
 of my brother. Yesterday he thought I might answer 
 for a blower and striker ; but this hour he would be willing 
 to have me preaching with him, united in the Christian 
 church! Now that I have come to be regarded and 
 respected by my brother in the light of a brother, cer- 
 tainly this is a compliment to be paid one so humble as 
 myself. 
 
 My brother says that he did not assert that omnipotent 
 19 
 
218 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TKINITT. 
 
 power was delegated to Jesiis Christ. I have proved that 
 all things were made by him, and for him ; whether they 
 be things in heaven, or things in earth ; all things were 
 made by him, and by him do all things exist. If all this 
 be true, and yet he does not possess omnipotent power, 
 either of absolute right, as his own, or by delegation, I 
 should like to know where omnipotence existed ? when 
 all things were created by him, and for him, I should 
 like to know where that omnipotent power did exist? 
 Whether they be thrones or dominions, &c., all things 
 were made by him, and for him, and without him was no- 
 thing made that was made. If omnipotent energy is not 
 exerted in creation, where is it ? If the God of creation 
 is not an omnipotent God, in what being shall we search 
 for this absolute perfection ? My brother wishes it dis- 
 tinctly understood that that omnipotent power was God. 
 Again, if omnipotent power is not exerted in Providence 
 by the Son of God, then it is not exerted at all : for by 
 him do all things exist. If omnipotent energy is not 
 necessary to the support of universal empire — to the 
 maintenance of universal existence — to the sustaining 
 of the Jaws of nature, in their endless ramifications, I 
 want to know where omnipotent energy pervades the 
 universe ? where is evidence of it given ? Yet this 
 power is declared to be possessed by Jesus Christ. I say 
 this brother is in great danger, at present, of annihilating 
 the delegated God. Yesterday I showed that both Provi- 
 dence and Redemption were essential, and were acknowl- 
 edged in Jesus Christ by my brother ; but it was seen how 
 very tenaciously he held that it was by delegation ; but 
 when this delegated power could not sustain itself, either 
 " by the testimony of Revelation, or logical induction," 
 the brother has become alarmed — and it is the only point 
 that he has abandoned — the position of Christ's omnipo- 
 tence. I find the essential attributes of infinity, in the 
 persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not making 
 three Gods, as my brother will force that conclusion, but 
 as constituting the one true and living God of the Bible, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 219 
 
 whom I have asserted is one God, not three Gods. The 
 God of Providence, the God of Kedemption, uniting the 
 infinite energies of Jehovah in the several offices which 
 the persons of the Trinity are represented as filling, not 
 increasing the number of persons, but identifying their 
 natures into one. The God, Word, or Logos, and the 
 Holy Spirit, as the almighty agent of the other persons 
 in the Trinity, to execute the design of his glorious un- 
 dertaking, in conjunction with the Father and the Son. 
 What God the Father does, God the Son approves ; for 
 in the councils of the divine mind in the Godhead, in the 
 persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is 
 harmony, no division. They are one in eveiy essential ; 
 one God, couiposed of three persons; hence the brother 
 will not think it worth while to run over the ground 
 agatTi. 
 
 Respecting the omnipotence of Jesus Christ — the 
 almighty power of Jesus Christ — my brother quotes a** 
 number of passages, all of which he wishes me to notice : 
 " I have power to lay down my life," &c., and wishes to 
 know if God had power to lay his life down. I assert 
 that all life emanates from God. He is the author of all 
 life, in all worlds the source of life, and hence he uses 
 this language : " I have power to lay down my life," 
 the life of the perfect human nature, which was united 
 and identified with the Deity — a union most mysterious 
 to the world, and ever to remain so. I have power 
 for the time being to lay this life down. I have asserted 
 that the Divine nature could not die, but a perfect human 
 nature, identified with the God, who is very God, and 
 very man, the Lord Jesus Christ. The human nature 
 did die, and it was this life to which Christ alluded, when 
 he said, " I have power to lay down my life." Again, 
 when he said, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I 
 will build it up again." It is the same life of which he 
 says he has power to lay down. The Evangelist says, he 
 refers to the temple of his body, and not to the templo 
 of Jerusalem. Thou wilt not leave my eoul in hell," 
 
220 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 was fully redeemed in the resun-ection of the body of 
 Jesus Christ from the grave, on the third morning. Had 
 he not possessed infinite power, what assurance could the 
 disciples have had that he would do as he said ? They 
 recognized the true God in the person of Jesus Christ, 
 and hence they had faith that his promises would be 
 fulfilled, though some doubted for the time, as my brother 
 doubts, yet they felt that all was not lost. The faith of 
 the women who came to his tomb, demonstrated that the 
 promise which had been made, was to be fulfilled ; they 
 approached the grave's mouth, an angel descended from 
 heaven, removed the stone, that it should ofifer no seem- 
 ing barrier to the completeness of his triumph, when he 
 destroyed the powers of darkness, and conquered the last 
 enemy, that through him we might also be made partak- 
 * ers of immortal life. We look upon this as the ground 
 of our hope of immortal destiny. We know that he was 
 of truly celestial, as he was of mortal origin, and we are 
 as truly representatives of the worlds of matter and of 
 mind, and we know that that which pertains to the world 
 of matter must be subject to decomposition, and that the 
 soul, which is indestructible, will rise again to accomplish 
 our final triumph. 
 
 The evidence of Jesus' rising is so clear — the angels 
 were there : " Why seek ye the living among the dead ? 
 He is not here, he is risen ; why came ye here to seek 
 him ? " After his resurrection he made himself known 
 to Mary, and to the two disciples, and was subsequently 
 seen by more than five hundred brethren ; and he also 
 mingled with his disciples, and instructed them on the 
 nature and extent of his glorious kingdom, and led them 
 out to Bethany, where, upon an eminence commanding 
 a view of the ethereal heavens, he lifted up his hands 
 and blessed them ; and Luke informs us that he was in 
 the act of blessing them, when he was parted from them, 
 and w^as carried up into heaven. As they stood gazing, 
 angels appeared and gave them assurance that this was 
 a final triumph. " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of God 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 221 
 
 coining in tlie clouds," &c. " In like manner as ye saw 
 this Jesus ascend into heaven, so shall he also come 
 down." 
 
 These assurances, sir, are the ground of hope to the 
 Christian world, that Christ will also descend. And what 
 for ? To raise to life again his sleeping dead, " for those 
 who sleep in Jesus shall God bring with him." We 
 console ourselves with the reflection of the essential Di- 
 vinity of Jesus Christ. My exhortation, as before, is, 
 adhere to this great doctrine, more especially with regard 
 to the equality of Jesus Christ with the Father. This is 
 the doctrine to which I would have you adhere, and I 
 would urge that again, especially as it is the gi'ound of 
 your future, hopes and ultimate triumph. There is no 
 hope of immortality unless it be derived and obtained 
 from God, for he only possesses absolute immortality ; 
 hence, if we partake of his nature, it must be through 
 God, and we receive it by power of God, through Jesus 
 Christ. Hence, when time shall be no more ; when 
 Christ shall come the second time; when the Lion of 
 the tribe of Judah shall appear in his godlike char- 
 acter, this we trust and believe : that he will descend into 
 the grave of sleeping humanity, and lift up those who 
 trusted and confided in him, and these shall have part in 
 the first resurrection. And it is upon this ground, that 
 the doctrines of future and endless retribution are predi- 
 cated, lie is the Judge, possessing the essential attri- 
 butes of the Divine mind ; to be a perfect judge, he must 
 have a perfect knowledge. He must possess omniscience 
 that he may b.e a perfect judge, that he may understand 
 all the various relations men sustain to each other, and 
 to God. But I have not been able to draw from my 
 opponent, what Jesus Christ is to him, although he repre- 
 sents him, in a very eloquent manner, as sitting at the 
 right hand of God. Heaven is represented as God's 
 throne, and earth his footstool ; but if we literalize these 
 passages, it is passing strange that we have not come in 
 contact with the Divine person, if he possesses a phys- 
 
222 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 ical body ; the one is just as likely to be regarded as a 
 physical manifestation as the other. I reverently speak, 
 when 1 speak of Jehovah, whether I adore him under 
 one, or the three persons in the Godhead, under which 
 his infinite perfections are represented ; whether Father, 
 Son, or Holy Ghost ; for the title of Jehovah, which 
 belongs to God only, is given indiscriminately to the 
 Father, Son, and Spirit. This title is given to Jesus in 
 one place alone ; hence, when I speak of the Son, my 
 brother impeaches us with not making the Son equal with 
 the Father. '* I honor the Son, even as I honor the 
 Father." "What does this equalifying phrase signify ? 
 Does it signify that the Father is a character eternal, an 
 omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God, and that 
 Jesus, an object of worship, possesses none of these attri- 
 butes ? is not omnipotent, neither by inheritance nor dele- 
 gation ? is not omniscient ? is not omnipresent ? can not 
 be everywhere ? is not eternal ? therefore, did not exist 
 in the morning of eternity, nor from all eternity. He did 
 not so exist, yet he is entitled to all praise and thanks- 
 giving, and my brother quoted the language of Revela- 
 tion, which ascribes life, honor, and glory to him, for 
 ever and ever ; to which I responded a hearty amen. If 
 the apostle says unto him be Might, let all say amen, let 
 angels and unborn seraphs say amen, and let men that 
 live upon this earth, and bow tlie knee to one God, the 
 Father, respond one hearty amen ! Here, then, we have 
 the doctrine of the infinity of Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ 
 worthy to be praised through ail ages, world without end. 
 My brothers closing exhortation I approve. TTe shall 
 have a happy conclusion, I trust, to this discussion, for 
 I will say, not that / have a desire to triumph, but for 
 the truth as it is in Jesus, that I feel the inspiration of 
 all these heavenly truths as I give them to you. I advise 
 my good friends, the Reporters, that they may look out 
 for manifestations of my warmth : it is my nature. I 
 hope they will excuse my remarks. 1 have to state dis- 
 tinctly, that no proposition has been given up by me. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 223 
 
 "What success mj brother has had, will be judged of, 
 when the work comes out amply reviewed. Christ is 
 God, equal with the Father in his Divine nature, in 
 substance, power, glory, and eternity ; and in the unity 
 of the Godhead there are tlu'ee persons — the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost ; the one God of Christians, the one 
 God of the Bible. This point, I think, will be made 
 suflSciently clear. I asserted that the highest seraph that 
 blazes before the throne of God, can only be in one place 
 at the same time ; but Christ says, where two or three 
 ai*e gathered together, there I am in their midst. ]N"ow, 
 if he be in more than one place at the same time, he is 
 capable of being in every place. The omnipresence of 
 Jesus Christ is therefore sustained beyond all cavil. 
 
 Mr. Su>lmekbell's Fifteenth address : 
 
 Kind Friends — I have alluded to several authors which 
 I should have read, had my brother challenged the quo- 
 tations. There are some, however, which I desire to 
 read extracts from, touching the question under discus- 
 sion, and shall proceed to do so at this time. 
 
 I wish it ever to be remembered, that I have not, like 
 my brother, endeavored to prove my position by authori- 
 ties on my own side of the question ; but from most 
 unquestionable Trinitarians; men whose interests, pre- 
 judices, and popularity, would all forbid any bias in my 
 favor. 
 
 I will now read from the highest authority, to show 
 that as late as the year A. D. 380, whether or not the 
 Holy Ghost was God ; and I want my brother to explain, 
 how those who are now claimed as the most eminent 
 Trinitarians of the fourth century, could be so, and yet 
 not be decided whether the Son was self-existent, or the 
 Holy Ghost a creature. This being the case, it could 
 hardly bo that the church of which they were the leading- 
 men, was Trinitarian. 
 
 Neandek, Vol. ii, p. 418. "It is remarkable, that at 
 the Nicene council the doctrine concerning the Holy 
 
224 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 Spirit, was expressed only in very vague and general 
 terras, but this point possessed, as yet, no very great inte- 
 rest in doctrinal polemics, and many who saw their way 
 clear to subscribe to the Homoousion, as it respected the 
 Son of God, would have scrupled to extend this same 
 determination also to the Holy Spirit. The unity of the 
 Christian consciousness of God had here so little permea- 
 ted as yet, the apprehension of the idea, that Gregory of 
 Xazianzen could still say, in the year 3S0, some of our 
 theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a mode of the 
 Divine Agency, (as, for instance, Lactantius had done in 
 a preceding period.) others a creature of God, others God 
 himself. Others say, they do not know, themselves, which 
 of the two opinions they ought to adopt, out of reverence 
 for the Holy Scriptures, which have not clearly explained 
 this point." 
 
 This is sufficient to show that the Trinity had not yet, 
 received its finishing touch. I told my brother that 
 I had the highest Trinitarian authority for asserting that 
 the Trinity was not at this period a doctrine of the 
 church. 
 
 Neander positively says, Yol. i, pp. 571 — 573, that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to the funda- 
 mental articles of the Christian faith ; but that it did, 
 from the beginning, constitute the fundamental conscious- 
 ness of the Catholic chm'ch, and referring to the texts 
 usually quoted to support it as a Bible doctrine, shows 
 that some of tliem are forged, and that others of them 
 are wrested from their true meaning. 
 
 But the question arises, how could this man be a Trin- 
 itarian ? It is very easy to live in a Trinitarian church. 
 If a man only consents that he believes the Trinity, he 
 may explain it as he pleases. My brother misquoted the 
 passage 1 Tim. i, 17. It does not read " The only wise 
 God our Saviour ; " but " Xow unto the King Eternal, 
 Immortal, Invisible, (not the visible Christ, but) the only 
 wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.'' Here, 
 the only wise God is distinguished from Jesus Christ, as 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 225 
 
 invisible and immortal. I want my brother to remember, 
 that this invisible One is the ojily wise God. My brother 
 will see, by refemng to the first verse, that God is called 
 our Saviour in connection with Jesus Christ. I will refer 
 my brother to Clarke, on this passage. 
 
 Clarke, 1 Tim. xvii, " ' Xow unto the King Eternal, 
 Immortal, Invisible, the only wise God, be honor and 
 glory for ever and ever, amen.' {Xow unto the King 
 Eternal.) This burst of thanksgiving and gratitude to 
 God, naturally arose from the subject then nnder his pen 
 and eye. God has most wondrously manifested his 
 mercy in this beginning of the Gospel, by saving me and 
 making me a pattern to all them that shall hereafter 
 believe on Christ." 
 
 Thus, my brother's own authorities apply his proof- 
 text to the Father. 
 
 There is a text which says, '* To the only wise God 
 our Saviour." My brother may find it in Jude, ver. 25, 
 but it has no reference to Jesus Christ, but to God, who 
 saves us by his Son. On this passage I will read Dr. 
 Macknight, high Presbyterian authority, superior to 
 Clarke, in all but oriental learning, and consequently, 
 superior here. 
 
 Macknight translates Jude i, 25, as follows: "To the 
 wise God alone, our Saviour, be gloiy and majesty, 
 strength and right, both now and throughout all ages, 
 amen." He comments thus: *'To the wise God alone, 
 that this is the true translation, see Kom. xvi, 27." 
 
 ''{Our Saviour.) From this appellation it is argued, 
 that the wise God, to whom this doxology is addressed, is 
 Jesus Christ, wiiose proper title is our Saviour, and who 
 is called God in other passages of Scripture, particularly 
 Horn, ix, 5, where he is styled, ' God over all hlessed 
 for ever? Xevertheless, as in some passages of Scrip- 
 ture, particularly Luke i, 47 ; 1 Tim. i, 1 ; Titus i, 3, 
 the Father is styled Our Saviour. This argument like- 
 wise is doubtful." — Macknight on the Epistles, Rom. 
 xvi, 27. 
 
226 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Macknight classes Jude, ver. 25; Eom. xvi, 27, and 
 1 Tim. i, IT, and treats them altogether, in each case 
 applying the title God, to God, and not to the Son of 
 God."^ I hope that my brother will cease to quote texts, 
 and apply them in such a manner, since it only puts me 
 to the trouble of refuting him. 
 
 As my brother still insists that there can be no medium 
 between God and the creature, and that it is impossible 
 in the nature of things, but that the Son of God must be 
 either the one or the other, I will now present you with 
 the views of some English bishops, much more learned 
 than either of us — at least than myself — I do not know 
 the extent of my brother's attainments. Mosh. Yol. ii, 
 314. " Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of great abilities, judg- 
 ment and learning, who, in 1724, was accused of alter- 
 ing and modifying the ancient and orthodox doctrine of 
 the Trinity. i3ut it must argue a great want of equity 
 and candor, to rank this eminent man in the class of 
 Arians — taking that term in its proper and natural sig- 
 nification — for he only maintained what is commonly 
 called the Arminian subordination, which has been, and 
 still is, adopted by some of the greatest men in England, 
 and even by some of the most learned bishops in that 
 country. This doctrine he illustrated with greater care 
 and perspicuity than any had done before him, and taught 
 that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in na- 
 ture, and difierent in rank, authority and subordination." 
 ■ — Applegate's quarto edition, p. 654. 
 
 Dr. Clarke denied the self-existence of the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost, and maintained their derivation from, 
 and subordination to, the Father ; and yet maintained 
 that they were of the same nature. Such, precisely, is 
 the Christian doctrine. Does my brother think that be- 
 ing three in person, but one in nature, would make them 
 one God ? This would no more teach that God is one, 
 than mankind are one. We are all partakers of the 
 same nature ; but we are not one man on that account. 
 There is no enlightened Christian who will deny that the 
 
DISCUSSIOJT ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 227 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same nature ; 
 but we do deny that three persons are all God. 
 
 I want my brother to remember these authorities — not 
 mine, but i'rom his own side of the house; yet they 
 agree with me, and differ with my brother. I leave them 
 to settle the question in dispute among themselves. 
 
 My brother quotes Gen. i, 1, ^' In the beginning God," 
 (Heb. Elohim) he admits that Elohim should not be 
 translated in the plural ; although he quotes authority to 
 prove that it should ! Dr. Clarke admits, on Gen. iii, 5, 
 that it should not be translated Gods, but God. My 
 brother refers to Gen. i, 26, " Let us make man." I have 
 no doubt, but God was here speaking to his Son, by 
 whom he made the worlds, Heb. i, 1-3. But my brother 
 does not believe that God had a Son at that time, nor 
 until four thousand years after. 
 
 My brother avoids stating whether those honors, which 
 he referred to in his exhortation this morning, should be 
 paid to the human nature of Jesus Christ ; that is an im- 
 portant point, which I do not wish him to evade. 
 
 My brother says, that Christ paid down, as the price 
 of our redemption, a perfect human nature, as good as 
 Adam, which became of infinite merit, by being ofiered 
 upon the altar of divinity ; but Clarke says, that God 
 will no more accept of man's blood in sacrifice, than he 
 will swine's blood. 1 want my brother to reconcile these 
 contradictions ; and also, to tell us to whom Christ paid 
 the price of our redemption ? Here, my brother became 
 veiy eloquent in his discourse — as he often does — and I 
 feel very good under it ; but I want him to come up to 
 the question, and meet the arguments involved in these 
 propositions. In defiance of the very best orthodox ex- 
 pounders of the text in Isaiah, " Unto us a child is born, 
 unto us a Son is given," &c., he maintains, that the child 
 born and son given, was the man Christ Jesus, " very 
 man, human nature ; " and that the mighty God was the 
 divine nature which dwelt in that man, which is nothing 
 more nor less than Socinianism. But the text says, that 
 
228 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 the child born should be called the Mighty God. He 
 says, that there is harmony in the three persons in the 
 Godhead! Harmony! And that Christ must possess 
 Omnipotence to create the world. Why will not my 
 brother answer my arguments on this point, instead of 
 passing them by and making random assertions ? The 
 Bible says, that "God created the worlds by his Son." 
 It does not say, Jesus Christ, but Son, Heb. i, 1. My 
 brother wishes to avoid that, because he does not believe 
 that God had a Son then. Could not God create the 
 worlds by his Son ? If you doubt it, you doubt the om- 
 nipotence of God. 
 
 He says, that I "admitted that Christ possesses Omni- 
 potent power, and that this is the only point which I 
 have given up." 
 
 I thank him for the compliment, that this is the only 
 point I have given up ; but I do not admit any such 
 thing, and I have given nothing up, as yet ! He again 
 quotes, " I have power to lay down my life," and thinks 
 that it was the man part of Christ that died, but the di- 
 vine nature gave it this power. Unitarians believe pre- 
 cisely the same. But he defines what he means by the 
 Trinity. He says, that God is only one ; yet he is the 
 God of nature, the God of providence, and the God of 
 grace. Yery well ! Why did he not go on, and say, he 
 is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
 God of Jacob ? but surely this does not prove the Trinity. 
 
 I will now present some additional arguments on the 
 Holy Spirit, showing that there was no real Trinity yet, 
 down to 380. The most eminent Bishops thought, as 
 they found the name God nowhere used expressly of 
 the Holy Spirit, they would not venture so to name it ; 
 Hilary, now claimed as a most eminent Trinitarian, know- 
 ing it only as the Spirit of God, (Nean. ii, 419) ; while 
 others supposed it to be an angel or agent, and all, that 
 both it and the Son were subordinate to the Father. 
 (Nean. i, 609.) The Bible makes the Holy Ghost bear 
 the same relation to God, that our spirit does to us. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 229 
 
 "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit 
 of a man which is in him; even so the things of God, 
 knoweth no man (no one) but the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 
 ii, 11. Now who will say that a man's spirit is a distinct 
 and separate person from the man ? Job xxvi, 13, says, 
 " By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens ; his hand 
 hath formed the crooked serpent;" and Ps. xxxiii, 6, 
 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and 
 all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Ps. 
 viii, 3, "The heavens, the work of thy fingers," &c. 
 
 Now, here we see that there would be the same con- 
 sistency in saying that God's hand, word, breath, and 
 fingers, were all as distinct persons in the Godhead, as the 
 Holy Ghost, for the same w^ork is performed by each. 
 Luke xi, 20. Jesus says : " K I, with the finger of God, 
 cast out devils ;" but in Matt, xii, 28, he says : " If I cast 
 out devils by the spirit of God ;" now there is the same 
 reascfti for making the finger of God a separate person, 
 that my brother gave for making the Holy Ghost a sepa- 
 rate person. He said that the Father begat Christ, and 
 the Holy Ghost begat Christ, so it was as much a person 
 as the Father. So here, devils were cast out by the 
 finger of God, and by the Holy Ghost. There is just as 
 much proof, my friends, that the finger of God is a sepa- 
 rate and distinct person in the Trinity, as that the Holy 
 Ghost is. That the spirit of God is possessed by others, 
 is no proof that it is a person. The spirit of men, is often 
 thus possessed by others. In Lnke i, 17, it says that John 
 the Baptist would not only be filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 but that he should go before the Lord in the spirit and 
 power of Eli as. In 2 Kings ii, 15, we find that the 
 spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha, after Elijah had gone 
 up into heaven. In 1 Cor. v, 3, Paul says: "For I 
 verily as absent in body, but present in spirit." There is 
 just as much proof that the spirit of a man is a distinct 
 person^ as that the spirit of God is. 
 
 If the holy Ghost be the supreme God, then God has 
 been seen in a bodily shape, like a dove. — Luke iii, 22. 
 
230 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 And men are baptized with the supreme God, and with 
 fire. — Luke iii. 16. 
 
 And God anointed Jesus Christ with the supreme 
 God. — Acts X. 3S. 
 
 The Holy Ghost assumed the form of cloven, fiery 
 tongues. Acts ii, 3 ; but this could not be true of God. 
 God gives us^f his spirit ; but God would not give the 
 supreme God. Jesus sends the Holy Ghost ; but not the 
 supreme God. 
 
 I now come again to a difficulty of my brother's, which 
 he cannot explain away. He says that *• The Holy 
 Ghost begat Jesus Christ, and that the Father begat 
 him," so that there is just as much proof that the Holy 
 Ghost is a person, as that the Father is. Here then are 
 tv:o persons begetting Christ, according to my brother ! 
 and this is true, if his system be true. Two i^ei-sons 
 begat Christ of the Virgin I Christ has two fathers then ! 
 What a system ! My brother may evade this, but he 
 cannot, and never will, explain it. Mark him well, he 
 will not I 
 
 I will now present another unanswerable argument. 
 God is a spirit. John iv, 2^. Xow if the Holy Ghost ^ 
 is a distinct person from the Father, here are two spirits. 
 That the pre-existent Logos is another person, my brother 
 contends, and that it is a spirit, he will not deny ; here 
 then are three spirits. The Father is a spirit ; the Son 
 is a spirit, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and all equal 
 in substance, power, and eternity. Well now, the Son 
 has a spirit, for God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son 
 into yom- hearts, crying, Abba Father. Gal. iv, 6. That 
 his was a pre-existent spirit, is proved by its prompting 
 the prophets. 1 Pet. i, 11. K any man have not the 
 spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Eo. viii, 9. This makes 
 four spirits. God also has a spirit. Gen. i, 2. The spirit 
 of God. And if the Holy Ghost be equal to the two other 
 persons, then it must have a spirit ; here are six spirits ; 
 and, according to my brother's reasoning, six jx^rsons. 
 Or let him tell us the difl'erence between the spirituality 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 231 
 
 of the first person, and the third, or why the third per- 
 son should not have a spirit, as well as the first. Yet 
 his Trinitarian fathers down to 380, did not know whether 
 the Spirit was an angel of God, or an agent. My brother 
 has all along been saying that he will take up my argu- 
 ments, and answer them in a regular course, at a proper 
 time. Now this is the proper time and place. Monday 
 is the last day on this question, therefore, do not put it 
 ofi' until Monday, for I will give you enough on Montlay 
 to answer Monday. I want my brother to answer my 
 argument about the two persons passing over omni- 
 potence to the third. He is behindhand upon many 
 points. I want him to satisfactorily explain, how Christ 
 is the eternal Son of God, or if not, how there was a Trin- 
 ity before there was a Son. My brother cannot answer 
 my arguments, nor the many passages of Scripture. I 
 want the congregation to mark these things, and to bear 
 in remembrance the scores of passages to which no an- 
 swer has been given. He exhorts his brethren not to 
 give up their faith. Don't let him alarm you, by telling 
 you that you can only be saved by holding his interpreta- 
 tion of the Bible. If you believe the Bible, it is enough ; 
 fear not but you will receive salvation, if you walk accord- 
 ingly. Who, I ask, can make a doctrine better than the 
 doctrine of the Bible ? or Articles of Religion, better 
 than those laid down in the Holy Scriptures? Jesus 
 Christ is the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit 
 of God ; this is the plain and evident teaching of the word 
 of God ; but my brother does not believe it, nor does he 
 believe his own creed. He promised to defend the equal- 
 ity of the Son ; but now he admits that the Son is the 
 " very man," and not eternal, and consequently, not God, 
 properly, at all, and puts in the place of the Son, the 
 Logos, or Word of God — not one of the Trinity at all. 
 Do not let my brother make you believe that your salva- 
 tion depends on faith in any such human exposition ; but 
 believe the Bible, and you will be saved. 
 
232 
 
 I)ISCTJ5SI0^' ON THE TRmTT. 
 
 Me. Flood's Fifteenth reply : 
 
 My brother is very anxious that I should catch up with 
 him, because he wishes to fill up his half hour. I can 
 not conceive of any other reason he has for it. It is pain- 
 M for me to have to complain ; and I am sorry that my 
 brother complains that his opponent does not keep up 
 with him. If it is tnie, this intelligent audience will 
 ascertain the fact; I should be willing to appeal to the 
 audience to determine how far I have left my brother 
 unanswered. He wishes to know whether his opponent 
 admits that the Father is a Spirit. He does ; whether his 
 opponent admits that the Word, or Logos, is a Spirit — he 
 certainly does ; whether the Holy Ghost, which is the third 
 person of the Trinity, is a Sj>irit — he certainly does ; for 
 he is termed a Holy Spirit, and correctly, too. Hence our 
 God is a Spirit : for our God is a Spirit, and they that 
 worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
 This, perhaps, will l)e quite satisfactoiy, as I have an- 
 swered in categorical form. I present an argument on 
 the ]^)ersonalily of the Holy Ghost, to prove that he pos- 
 sesses attributes essential to the divine nature. '* Jesus 
 answered, and said unto him, Yerily, verily I say unto 
 thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
 he can not enter into the kingdom of God.*' John 
 iii, 5. Here the work of regenerating the heart — of re- 
 newing man, and producing the new birth, is attributed 
 to the Spirit of God. What does my brother understand 
 the Holy Spirit to be ? He says it does not possess per- 
 sonality. He says there were some at the Xicene coun- 
 cil who did not believe in the personality of the Spirit. 
 He is very careful to use the word separate, when we use 
 the term connected or united. Tnis is very convenient 
 for him. no doubt. We assert the Father, Son. and Holy 
 Spirit to be equal : hence, if they are equal in the divine 
 nature, then, of course, they are equal in substance, equal 
 in power, equal in etemit}', equal in glory. They can 
 not be separate in the sense in which he designs to make 
 it appear ; he would desire to separate our only true God. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 233 
 
 We hold that they are only one God ; and if any one of the 
 number be not God, in all the essential elements of that 
 nature, we have no God. We invite attention to the 
 fixct, that the Holy Spirit does possess eternity. Heb. ix, 
 14, Hovr much more shall the blood of Christ, who, 
 through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot 
 to God." Here the apostle 'declares the Holy Spirit to 
 be the ''Eternal Spirit." My brother would have us 
 substitute "Influence," or "Holy Influence," for "Holy 
 Ghost." Were we to admit this change we should read, 
 " I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Influence;" or, allowing that the word 
 " Holy " should previously occur, it would be, " I bap- 
 tize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Influence." It is the most that my opponent 
 can claim that the Holy Spirit does possess person- 
 ality. Omniscience is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. Rom. 
 XV, 19, " Through the mighty signs and wonders, by the 
 power of the Spirit of God ; so that from Jemsalem and 
 round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the 
 Gospel of Christ." Now it was by the power of the 
 Spirit of God, that he preached the gospel through that 
 region. We invite attention to the truth that the Holy 
 Spirit possesses omniscience as well as omnipotence. 
 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11, " But God hath revealed them unto us by 
 his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things ; yea, the deep 
 things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a 
 man, save the Spirit of man, which is in him ? Even so 
 the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of 
 God." Here omniscience is attributed to the Holy Spirit, 
 hioiciyig the things of God. We may have occasion 
 to refer to this argument again. 
 
 On the word Elohim he complains that I did not quote 
 passages in support of my argument. I gave him chap- 
 ter and verse. Here is the work, that he may search it out 
 if he desires. Watson presents moi-e than thirty passages 
 where the word does occur in its plural form. Clarke fol- 
 lows in the same argument.. I did it iox the purpose of 
 
234 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 letting him know the signification of the term. Tlie pas- 
 sage might justly have been rendered Gods. This is an 
 • argument drawn fi'om Clarke. Mt brother makes a 
 reference to Timothy. I hare not seen any thing in my 
 brother's remarks bearing upon that passage which affects 
 it in the slightest degree. He inquires, how can a finite 
 creature make an infinite atonement \ If my brother had 
 consented not to pass over the same ground more than 
 once, he would have had his barrel more nearly emptied 
 than he conceives it to be. I took the position that he 
 oflered a sacrifice of a perfect humanity, mysteriously 
 nnited with the divinity ; he ofiered the sacrifice of that 
 humanity ; and the connection of the humanity with the 
 divinity, gave to it an infinite merit, by which an ade- 
 quate atonement was made for the sins of the whole 
 world. My brother now denies that he gave up that 
 Jesus did possess omnipotence. I understood it as im- 
 plied. He would not admit that he possessed it ; he 
 now says that he is under no obligation to say whether 
 he did or did not. ^ill he now take the position to dis- 
 prove that Jesus possessed omnipotent power i I assume 
 that he does ; that he is possessed of all power in heaven 
 and earth; that he possesses the right, and holds the 
 reins of universal empire ; he is head over all things to 
 the church. When he is head over all things, I can not 
 conceive of any thing over which he is not head, unless, 
 as my brother says, all may \)Q part ! Now, here I con- 
 ceive that if Christ possesses all power in heaven, and all 
 power in earth, and that he is over all, there can be no 
 power, no superior power ; and if no superior power, no 
 lX)wer that is equal — that two almighty powers, I hold, 
 can not exist at the same time in the universe. I have 
 shown, among the powei-s possessed, was the power to 
 give life to the highest order of heavenly existence — the 
 source of all life on earth, of all life in all worlds — this 
 is the power which must be ])05sessed, to possess all 
 power in heaven and earth. With what order of intel- 
 ligences, I should like to know, does my brother associate 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITY. 
 
 235 
 
 Jesiis Christ? "With God, makiog him one with God, 
 in the true and proper sense, as to his perfections ? Or 
 with angels, any of the order of angels ? or with human- 
 ity, with men ? I should like to know what character he 
 intends to attach to Jesus Christ ? After four days' dis- 
 cussion, I know not that he has attached any. That he 
 is equal with the Father in power, glory, and eternity ; 
 that he is God, we have declared out and openly. Xow 
 I should be pleased if he would point out to us. The 
 Son of God is an indefinite term, unless he explains what 
 he means by it properly ; for angels are said to be sons 
 of God ; men are said to be sons of God by creation, by 
 preservation, and by redemption. Those who have ac- 
 cepted the terms of redemption, stand in this endearing 
 relation, acknowledged his sons — as his adopted ones. I 
 have yet to learn where my brother places his Saviour ? 
 what he makes of him ? whether he be omnipotent or 
 not ? He says, *• Aly argument is here ; he has not an- 
 swered it ; he can not answer it. If I bear witness of 
 myself, my witness is not true.'' I have not insinuated 
 that my brother manifests any want of argument, except 
 that which necessarily proceeds from the feebleness and 
 untenableness of his cause. 
 
 I quoted, yesterday, a number of authorities, showing 
 that this doctrine of the equality of the Father with the 
 Son, was held from Ignatius, A. D. 107 — that all that 
 was essential to the doctrine of the absolute, essential 
 equality of Jesus Christ, was clearly taught ; and espe- 
 cially the words of our proposition, with regard to the 
 equality of Christ with the Father. Hence, I quoted 
 this authority to show, that all that was essential to the 
 character of Jesus Christ, as God, was to be found in the 
 testimony of Ignatius as early as 107 — long before the 
 Kicene creed was compiled. I also quoted Justin Mar- 
 tyi*, embracing the essential doctrine of the Deity of 
 Christ, as well as of the Trinity ; for the three persons 
 are deified, whom we worship and adore as the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, and as Christ says, are to be wor- 
 shiped in spu'it and in truth. 
 
236 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 According to Mackniglit's rendering, Jesus Christ can 
 not be like God, and be an inferior being. He is like 
 God in all the essential elements of his nature, if Mac- 
 knight's rendering is to be taken, which I do not admit, 
 although a respectable authority. 
 
 Gregory's Evidences, p. 337. " Athenagords, who 
 flourished in the second century, speaks of Christians 
 who made small account of the present life, but were 
 intent only upon contemplating God and knowing his 
 Word^ who is from him ; what union the Son has with 
 the Father ; what communication the Father has vnth 
 the So7i ; what the Spirit is, and what the union and dis- 
 tinction are of such : so united the Spirit, the Son, and the 
 rather." 
 
 Here, these three persons are spoken of at this early 
 period, in a very distinct manner. 
 
 " Cyprian, when arguing against the invalidity of 
 heretical baptisms, inquires how the subject of such 
 baptism can become the temple of God, saying : If ye be 
 thereby made the temple of God, I would ask, of what 
 Divine person is it ? Is it of God, the Creator ? He 
 could not be so if he believed not in him. Is it of 
 Christ ? Neither can he be his temple while he denies 
 Christ to be God. Is it then of the Holy Spirit ? But 
 since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit have 
 friendship with him that is at enmity with either Father 
 or Son ? This father abounds with passages in which 
 the Divinity of Christ is asserted." 
 
 I supposed, in the beginning, that my opponent, being 
 a Bible man, would present Bible argument, and that he 
 w^ould perhaps try to show by his own skill, the perfect 
 harmony of passages maintaining the different positions 
 which he assumes. 
 
 Mk. Summerbell's Sixteenth address : 
 
 My brother says that I have not brought Scripture to 
 prove my position. I have cited him to over thirteen 
 thousand texts in classes, giving him sample texts repre- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 237 
 
 sentiDg those of each class, agreeing to bring forward 
 the whole if he would examine them ; but he has hardly 
 noticed the specimen texts. I have quoted some thirteen 
 hundred texts, for many of them giving him chapter and 
 verse, of which he has hardly replied to fifty. And yet, 
 he assures you that I am not a Bible man. Truly, there 
 is no accounting for tastes. He quotes Ignatius, to prove 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. But he finds no Trinity 
 there. Ignatius speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, just as I would, and my brother thinks that this 
 proves the Trinity, and thinks it truly wonderful to find 
 evidence as early as that ; while, according to him, it had 
 been believed since the days of Adam. But from vrhom 
 does my brother quote ? Not from history, but from a 
 sectarian book written to prove the Trinity — a book of 
 no reputation at all ; very unlike the works which I read, 
 Neander, Mosheim, Macknight, &c. But he takes up 
 this ex parte evidence, and relies upon it, just as if I 
 should prove my positions by books written by our own 
 ministers. I will now read you a few more extracts from 
 the fathers. 
 
 Polycarp, A. D. 108, in whose words my brother 
 vainly attempted to find a Trinity, says, praying to God 
 " Almighty God, Father of thy beloved Son Jesus 
 Christ ; " but says nothing of a Trinity. Clement, A. D. 
 96, an Apostolic father, says, " We adore him as being 
 the Son of God." Justin Martyr says, There is one 
 God, who manifested himself by Jesus Christ, his Son, 
 who is his Eternal Word." — Milner i, 93. Hegesippus, 
 the only historian before the fourth century, is now con- 
 demned as a Unitarian. My brother read the fathers, 
 but he found no Trinity there. Mosheim says, Vol. i, p. 
 128, that at the council of Constantinople, " A hundred 
 and fifty bishops gave the finishing touch to what the 
 council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full 
 and determinate manner, the doctrine of three persons 
 in one God." Mosheim, Yol. i, 128. Thus he agrees 
 with Barnes, who repudiates the idea that the Nicene 
 
238 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 creed 13 Trinitarian. But the procession of the Holy 
 Ghost was not yet settled in the ninth century, as Mo- 
 sheim teaches, Yol. i, p. 225. 
 
 Nor was the two natures of Christ settled till the 
 Berenth century. Gibbon, Yol. iv, 422, says, under this 
 date " the creed was finally settled, which teaches that 
 two wills are harmonized in the person of Christ.'- Gib- 
 bon was not a Christian, but he was a learned and able 
 man, and is an authentic historian ; and if my brother 
 wants his authority vouched for, he may go to Barnes on 
 Revelations, who says, that he derived more light respect- 
 ing the book of Revelation, from Gibbon, than from any 
 other writer. My brother is a good speaker ; he possesses 
 talents of a very respectable order, but he fails in the 
 argument, and in his main efforts is but beating the air ; 
 for it is impossible to prove a theory unless he has 
 something to prove it by. But he has not been able to 
 bring one word to support the Trinity yet, either from 
 the Bible or ancient history, if we except the heathen 
 record referred to by Clarke; while I prove every position 
 by those whom he claims as his own authorities. Justin 
 Martyr, whom my brother claims as a Trinitarian father, 
 
 conceived of tlie Spirit (not as a third person and God, 
 but) as subordinate to the Father and the Son, standing 
 in some relation to the angels." Origen describes it as 
 the only begotten of the Father through the Son." 
 And Xeander farther states, that the prevailing opinion 
 in the western church was, " one Divine essence in the 
 Father and the Son, but at the same time a subordination 
 in relation of the Son to the Father." Xeander, Yol. i, 
 pp. 605, 608. You see that these could not be Trinita- 
 rians, and if these were not, then there were no Trinita- 
 rians yet in the church. 
 
 My brother does not like my reminding you of the 
 arguments he has not answered. I can not help it, but 
 still call upon him to answer them. He did not prove 
 that the Holy Ghost was a distinct person from the 
 Father J and God, which he should have proved. He is 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 239 
 
 to prove that each of the three is a distinct person and 
 one God. To prove that they were three infinites united 
 to make one infinite, is as much as to say that a part 
 is as great as the whole. 
 
 He thinks, that I would desire to separate the persons 
 of the Godhead. No, I would not. There is but one 
 person in the Godhead. I believe in one undivided God, 
 the great eternal fountain of all existence, and one only 
 begotten Son of God. I do not believe that Jesus Christ 
 is a second |:>erson in the Godhead. Xor does my bro- 
 ther truly believe that Christ is equal with God, but that 
 he is, as respects his divine nature. Jimeson, his Ex- 
 ponent of the Twenty -five Articles, says, God and the 
 two other persons in the Trinity.'' Tliis is what I call 
 separating them. 
 
 He says that he holds to the plural form of Elohim, 
 and mentions some thirty passages to prove that it should 
 be translated Gods. Thus he at first denied, that he had 
 more than one God; but now, it is Elohim, the Gods! 
 Strange theory. 
 
 He says, that the finite humanity was sacrificed upon 
 the altar of divinity ; but he does not prove it, nor is it 
 true. Still he cleaves to the man sacrifice ; yet Clarke 
 says, that God will no more accept of man's blood, than 
 he will swine's blood. He still says, that Jesus possessed 
 Omnipotence, but does not prove it ; but Jesus says, I 
 can of mine own self do nothing,-' and I must believe 
 Jesus. He says, that if all things are put under Jesus, 
 then God must be under him, or all^ means part. My 
 brother is arguing against the Bible. Paul says, "Then 
 Cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
 kingdom to God, even the Father — when he shall have 
 put do-^Mi all rule, and authority, and power, for he must 
 reign till he hath put all things under his feet ; the last 
 enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he liath put 
 all things under Ms feet. "But when he saith all things 
 are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted that 
 did put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 24^-28. Now 
 
240 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 let him settle it with Paul. He says, almighty power 
 can not exist in two beings ; but he has it existing in 
 three persons in his Trinity. 
 
 Kow I want him to show, why it can not exist in two 
 as well as three ? He asks me, where I place m}- Jesus ? 
 I answer, just where the Bible places hini. 
 
 The Bible tells me, that " he is the Son of God, seated 
 at God's right hand." My brother thinks this an orien- 
 tal figure of speech. Did the dying Stephen see an ori- 
 ental figure of speech ? He says that I will not define 
 what I mean by the Son of God. Have I not said, 
 that Jesus was God's Son ? that is what 1 mean. Has 
 lie yet defined his three persons, and told what three they 
 are ; three men, three angels, or three Gods. My brother 
 quotes Jesus' words, " If I bear witness of myself, my 
 witness is not true ; " but on his theory, did not J esus 
 bear witness of himself? Perhaps this is the reason why 
 he will not believe him ! And was not my brother bear- 
 ing witness of himself ? 
 
 My brother has not answered my historical argument, 
 that the anti-Nicene churches all held to the subordina- 
 tion of the Son to the Father. He has not explained 
 how it came, that all the first kings, historians, lathers, 
 nations, and councils were anti-Trinitarian. 
 
 He has not told us whether he will worship the very 
 man part of his Christ, and the body of his Grod. He 
 says he worships him all as God — this is what the apostle 
 condemns as idolatry — worshiping the ''very man," the 
 creature as the Creator. "When he calls Jesus God, he 
 only means that God was in him — he don't mean that 
 the dying Jesus was God. Whether the man Christ 
 Jesus possessed infinite attributes, he has not deigned to 
 tell us. His own position, "If God gave Christ all 
 power," &c., that this passing over of all power annihi- 
 lates God, which I turned upon him, by showing that he 
 made the divinity give the humanity all power, and so 
 the humanity became God — and thus, his own logic anni- 
 hilated his God — he has not satisfactorily cleared up. 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 241 
 
 My arguments on the personal pronouns, I, Me, My, 
 Thee, Tliy, Thou, &c., he has not answered. He denies 
 that the Si vine Saviour is the Son of God. He admits 
 that the Child born, Is. ix, 6, was not God, but that the 
 mighty God was God — doctrine that Socinians agree with 
 him in. 
 
 My brother quoted Gen.: "Let m make man," and 
 cited me to several similar texts which he did not read, 
 as proof that God, or Elohim, should be rendered Gods ; 
 but if my brother has any other texts, let him quote them. 
 I have no doubt that God here spoke to his Son, by whom 
 he made the worlds. But as my brother does not believe 
 that God had a Son, he thinks that God was talking to 
 himself. My brother quoted his Discipline that the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost were united in God — very 
 God and very man — the God of the Bible ; but that is 
 not Bible. 
 
 My brother, in his long exhortation this morning, care- 
 fully avoided telling us whether these honors were ascribed 
 xo the Lamb that was slain. I still wait to know if he 
 will worship the Jesus that died for him. He quoted 
 1 Tim. i, 17, Xow to the King Eternal, Immortal, In- 
 visible ; the only wise God, our Saviotir^'^'^ and called 
 my attention to it. Xow I gave it my attention, and 
 found the words " our Saviour were not in the text. 
 The text is thus against my brother, by calling the invis- 
 ible God the only wise God. Clarke, his own authority, 
 Bays that God thus saves us, &c., " making me (Christ) a 
 pattern to all them that shall hereafter believe on me." 
 Thus my brother quotes, first his Discipline, and then 
 misquotes Scripture to prove his position. Come, come, 
 brother, if you have any Trinity present it, or else confess 
 that you can not. Again, my brother says, that Christ 
 paid down the price of our redemption, a perfect human 
 nature ; yet Clarke says that God will no more accept 
 man's blood in sacrifice, than swine's blood. Beside, I 
 ask my brother how a finite human nature could pay an 
 infinite demand ? I know that my brother is tired 
 hearing this, but h' must bear it. 
 21 
 
242 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 My argument this morning, proving that his theory 
 plainly made three Gods, my brother carefully avoided. 
 I now again urge him to answer it. The debate is going 
 before the world, and his good talh will not supply the 
 place of argument. My brother still continues to be lay- 
 ing my arguments over to be answered in the future ; 
 but we have but one more day. I urge him to answer 
 them now: now is the time! My brother carefully 
 avoided my argument on the personality. He says there 
 is harmony in the three persons in the Godhead ! ! ! Some 
 Trinitarians, however, think differently, and say that one 
 of them killed the otlier; and quote Zech., "Awake, O 
 sword, against my shepherd," to prove it. lie says Christ 
 must possess omnipotence to create the world. It would 
 be much better to answer my arguments on omnipotence, 
 than to make random assertions. The Bible tells us that 
 God created the worlds hy Jesus Christ — not that Jesus 
 Christ created them alone, or by his own power. 
 
 But my brother says, that Ileb. i, 3, teaches that he 
 upholds all things by the w^ord of his own power. No, 
 my brother, I proved to you that it was God's power. 
 He says that I admitted that Christ did not possess omni- 
 potent power. I admitted that he had not proved it. I 
 never said that he did. On the "power to lay down his 
 life," he now says that the divine nature had power to 
 lay down the life of the human nature, and power to 
 take it again. This all Socinians admit — that the divine 
 nature, God in Christ, had this power. Again and again 
 he says that God is the God of creation, providence, 
 and God of redemption. He may just as well say the 
 God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob. 
 
 When I proved to him that Paul was present in spirit, 
 when absent in body ; instead of admitting that he was 
 wrong in challenging such proof, he said, or asserted, 
 that the highest seraph in heaven could not be present 
 in more than one place at the same time. Neither my 
 ■ brother nor I can tell the extent of the powers of celestial 
 spirits. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 243 
 
 I will now continue my quotations from the fathers, 
 by which you can not fail seeing that they were not Trini- 
 tarians ; but, in the main, evidently agreed with us. I 
 will first quote — 
 
 Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. I will endeavor to 
 show that he who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and 
 Moses, and who is called God in Scripture, is different 
 from the God who made all things; niim.erically 
 different^ but the same in will. For I say that he never 
 made any thing but what that God who made all things^ 
 and above whom there is no God, willed that he should 
 do and say." Strom., Lib. 6, 646. 
 
 " In uttering a word we beget a word." Ibid. 226. 
 
 " In the beginning, before all creatures God begat from 
 himself a certain reasonable power, called the Glory of 
 God, sometimes the Lord, and Logos ; because he is sub- 
 servient to the Father's will, and was begotten at the 
 Father's pleasure." Ed. Thirlby, p. 266. 
 
 Theophilus says : " When God said let us make man, 
 he spoke to nothing but his own Logos or Wisdom. Be- 
 fore any thing was made, God had the Logos for his 
 council. When he proceeded to produce, then he emit- 
 ted the Logos — the first-born of ever}^ creature." Ad 
 Autolycum, Lib. 2, p. 129. 
 
 Iren^us says : If any one asks us how is the Son 
 produced from the Father, we tell him that whether it be 
 called generation, muncupation, or derpation, or by what- 
 ever other name, this ineffable generation is called, no one 
 knows it; neither Yalentinus, nor Marcion, Saturninus, 
 Bassillidus, angels or archangels, principalities or pow- 
 ers, but only the Father who begat, and the Son who is 
 begotten." Lib. 2, ch. 48, p. 176. 
 
 Tertullian says: "Before all things God was alone, 
 but not absolutely alone ; for he had with him his own 
 reason, since God is a rational being. This reason the 
 Greeks called Logos, which term we render ' Sermo.' 
 You will say what is speech (Logos,) beside a word or 
 sound, unsubstantial and incorporeal: nothing unsub- 
 
244 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 stautial or incorporeal can proceed from God. Wlien 
 did this speech assume its form and dress \ its sound and 
 voice i When God said. Let there be light. This is the 
 perfect maturity of the Word, which p»roceeded from God; 
 trom this time making him equal to himself, from which 
 procession he became his Son, his lirst-born and only- 
 begotte;n ; begotten before all worlds : the Son is the 
 fenno, the other angels, Spiritxis Dei. There is a great 
 difference between the Son of God and the other angels." 
 Praxeam. ch. 5, p. 502-3, and in L. sec. 8, p. 371. 
 
 Tertullian further says, "God was not always a Father 
 or a Judge ; since he could not be a Father before he had 
 a Son, nor a judge before sin. There was a time when 
 both the Son and sin were not." Chap. 3, 334. 
 
 Lactantics says : "And God. before making the world, 
 produced a holy and incorruptible Spirit, which he might 
 call his Son ; and afterward by him created innumerable 
 otlier spirits, called angels. Christ taught us (that) one 
 God alone (is) to be worshiped, neither did he ever call 
 himself God." Just., Lib. 4, p. 264. 
 
 ILelaey, who wrote after the council of Nice, says, 
 " God the Father is the cause of all — without beginning 
 and solitary; but the Son was produced by the Father, 
 without time, and was created and founded before the 
 ages. He was not before he was born, but he was bom 
 without time ; he alone subsists from the Father alone." 
 Lib. 459. 
 
 EusEBius says : "If this makes them apprehend lest we 
 should seem to introduce two Gods, let them know that 
 though we do, indeed, acknowledge the Son to be God, 
 yet there is absolutely but one God, even he who is alone, 
 without origin and unbegotten." Clarke on the Trinity, 
 p. 307. 
 
 Thus my brother's appeal to the fathers is entirely 
 against him. I insist upon it that my brother clear up 
 these remarkable argwments ! and answer the evidences 
 and arguments which I have produced. 
 
 I plead for my Lord and Saviour the Son of God, for 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 245 
 
 an undivided Jesus ; I want none of this cutting and di- 
 viding my Saviour — to me he is all divine. How can I 
 but worship him! God commands it — and when I look at 
 his bleeding side, his temples torn, his pierced hands and 
 feet, and remember that this body was prepared for him 
 that he might die for me — that he left the courts of glory 
 and took upon him this form of a servant — that he was 
 rich, and for our sakes became poor, and was made a 
 little lower than the angels that he might die for me, I 
 must worship him. Not simply the divine nature that 
 was in him do I honor — God is in all his saints ; but 
 Jesus, himself, the divine Son of God. 
 
 My brother can preach an excellent sermon. He ex- 
 horts well ; he often calls heaven to witness that he is 
 not defeated ; he says that your salvation depends upon 
 your cleaving to the creed; but all this does not answer 
 the argument. He talks well about death and heaven ; 
 but this is only to convey your minds away from the 
 argument ; and he will continue thus to endeavor to carry 
 your minds awa}^, in religious feeling and exhortation, 
 to the end, if you will permit him. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Sixteenth reply : 
 
 We have come to the day of preparation, and nearly 
 to the evening of that day, and in a little while, your 
 attention will be called to other matters — to the prepara- 
 tion for God's Sabbath. I would not desire, in the slight- 
 est degree, to interfere with any religious or devotional 
 feeling, that ought to exist on such an occasion, and I 
 was quite pleased with the warm and tender address of 
 my brother, to hear him exhort so well ; but, unhappily, 
 we shall become accustomed to these exhortations, if they 
 happen to be in the same words, and they will lose their 
 point when we come to be familiar with them. Let me 
 invite your attention to what he regards as argument. 
 The references to Gregoiy's Evidences, I quoted in 
 support of the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, as maintained by the church in the first century, 
 
\ 
 
 246 DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITY. 
 
 commencing at the first, and extending to the assembling 
 of the Xicene council. He quotes Mosheira, and says, 
 that the doctrine of the Trinity received its finishing 
 touch about this time. Xow this expression merely 
 referred to some difiering views that prevailed — ques- 
 tions that arose out of this — they not yet being projx^rly 
 informed ; and it was thus that the doctrine was oflicially 
 and authoritatively settled in favor of the Trinity ; and 
 this is what he means by receiving its finishing touch. 
 My brother thinks, Gregory is not respectable authority. 
 Does he ? I will not say that the authorities quoted by 
 him are not respectable. I have here a respectable 
 authority, I believe, the Rev. John Broum, the author of 
 the Bible Dictionary. My brother has not relieved him- 
 self of his difficulty about three persons in the Godhead, 
 constituting the Trinity, and composing the one living 
 and true God of the Bible, in whom we profess faith, 
 and contends we maintain the idea of three separate and 
 distinct heings / a thing which has not once been ad- 
 vanced by his opponent during the discussion. I have 
 continually insisted that there is only one God, in es- 
 sence, power, and glory ; yet he will try to put words in 
 my mouth that I never uttered, and that I would not 
 permit to pass my lips ; it is that which cometh out of 
 man that polluteth him. 
 
 I allow my brother credit for believing in one great 
 God, and one inferior Saviour, who, in heaven sits, by 
 some means, on the right hand of his father. He has 
 admitted that the Son does not possess the essential ele- 
 ment of divine nature. 
 
 I pressed him. in my last remarks, to know whether 
 he was human, divine, or angelic. To no one question 
 does he deign to reply ; yet he pleads with the audience 
 that his arguments have not been answered. His argu- 
 ments have been quotations from Trinitarian divines. I 
 differ from them on some points. I differ from Watson 
 on the eternal Sonship, who assumes that Christ is eter- 
 nal JSon; that the same person was made flesh, and came 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 24T 
 
 to dwell among us, and we beheld his glor}\ I ask my 
 friend to tell me wliat Christ is ? I believe him to bo 
 the very eternal God, and very man ; I believe the eter- 
 nal God to be united in one person in Jesus Christ, 
 with the very man ; and that tiiis very God and very 
 man is one person — the second person in the Trinity — 
 equal in substance, power, glory, and eternity ; as such, 
 he possesses all the attributes of the divine nature, such 
 as omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, and al mighti- 
 ness ; he possesses all power in heaven and earth ; he is 
 the source of light, unto every being that exists — from 
 the tallest archangel to the humblest of God's creatures ; 
 he is the -fountain of life to the innumerable millions 
 of God's elect, who have washed their robes and made 
 them white in the blood of the Lamb — who are before 
 his throne worshiping him day and night; he is the 
 author of life to all creatures, that inhabit all worlds, 
 whether great or small — from the mightiest creature that 
 exists upon the face of the earth, to the feeblest animalcule 
 that is indiscernible to the natural eye. My opponent 
 is here to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity, as set 
 forth in the Discipline, with regard to the equality of the 
 Son with the Father, in power, glory, and eternity, is con- 
 trary to the teaching of the Holy Spirit ; this is what he 
 is here to prove, and not whether Clarke and Machiight 
 agree, and Neander and Mosheim may be pleased to 
 assert. I assume, that the sacrifice which Jesus Christ 
 made, was a sacrifice of a perfect human nature. 
 
 I offered, in my previous remarks, some explanation of 
 the terms finite, and infinite, I will briefiy repeat it. 
 The word finite is, accordingly, applied to any thing 
 which comes to an end — these are finite things; all the 
 materials connected with this world are finite, with every 
 particle of matter that is destructible. As to future exist- 
 ence, men and angels are not finite, they are all infinite. 
 There was a time, when angels did not exist ; there was 
 a time, when they began their existence ; but there will 
 be no time, in the future, when angels will not exist, so 
 
248 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 there is no man that ever existed, that will cease to 
 exist. Saul of Tarsus, Isaac Newton^ and the humblest 
 slave that crouches beneath the lash of his tyrant master, 
 shall live, when the sun itself grows dim with age. There 
 is no being, however exalted, or humble, that will not 
 live to witness the destruction of time, when time itself 
 shall be dissolved in the boundless ocean of eternity. 
 Christ, in his human nature, was suited to be a com- 
 panion of finite man. During his sojourn on earth, he 
 ''was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," that 
 he might accomplish the work of man's redemption, 
 " for without the shedding of blood, there is no redemp- 
 tion." 
 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his divine nature, has lived 
 from all eternity, with the Father: "In the beginning 
 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God." In his human nature, he lays hold 
 upon the essential element of our nature, and is, there- 
 fore, qualified to be our Redeemer, and is able to raise to 
 heaven our wretched, staggering, and ruined world, if 
 they would accept the terms of salvation that he has 
 provided. He shall give salvation to his people, and 
 they shall sit down with him on his throne, as he has 
 overcome and sat down with his Father. 
 
 He wishes to know, with regard to our worship of 
 Christ, whether we will worship the Christ that was 
 upon the cross. We have but one Christ, one undivided 
 Saviour. In Jesus Christ, the humanity was attached to 
 the divinity; it is the union of two natures in one per- 
 son. We have one Christ, very God and very man ; 
 this Christ we worship, as the proper object of our faith. 
 Ahram worshiped him ; he was the star of promise that 
 lighted the way of the faithful ; it was upon him he re- 
 lied, looking forward to his coming — we retrospectively 
 to the past. This was the promise ; the Child born ; the 
 Son given ; this is the mighty God ; the everlasting 
 Father ; the Prince of Peace ; it is he upon whose shoul- 
 ders the government of everlasting mercy shall rest — 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 249 
 
 mightier than Gahriel himself, who flies with h'ghtning 
 speed to execute the designs of God. 
 
 So Christ possesses infinite power, excellence, and 
 glory in. himself; he is declared to be the Child born, 
 the Son of God ; but this is in relation to his human 
 nature ; then he is declared to be the mighty God ; the 
 universal Father; the Prince of Peace, and this is in re- 
 lation to his divine nature. We can not properly name 
 God ; he is known in our language by different names ; 
 but we have no right to name Jehovali — perhaps, there 
 is no one name which can adequately express the per- 
 fections of the author of universal existence ; but he has 
 seen fit to ' make a revelation through his Son Jesus 
 Christ ; but for this revelation, we must have been left in 
 profound ignorance, as are many within the world at the 
 present day. My brother said I had not the knowledge 
 of God — he said this to my shame. I thank God I am 
 in some measure in the light of his word. I recognize 
 him in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, 
 and I find the truths of his divine word corroborated, 
 when compared with the objects of sense. I am im- 
 pressed like the psalmist, "When I consider the heavens, 
 the work of thy hands ; the moon, and the stars, which 
 thou hast ordained, what is man, that thou art mindful of 
 him, or the Son of man, that thou visitest him." I take 
 pleasure in reflecting, that he who made tliese mighty 
 objects, that are represented to our senses, has conde- 
 scended to become our redeemer. Now the Creator is 
 also the redeemer. I recognize and worship Jesus 
 Christ, with God the Father as one, filling the ofiice of 
 the second person in the Trinity, and 1 regard the Holy 
 Ghost as the efiicient agent in accomplishing the bene- 
 volent designs of God, throughout the universe. I may, 
 perhaps, be allowed to represent the idea of the Trinity, 
 by the use of a figure from the world of nature. I use 
 it, however, with some qualification, for it falls infinitely 
 short of illustrating the great truth — for who can illustrate 
 that which is infinite ? It must be so to all finite minds ; 
 
250 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 take, for example, VMter in its three conditions, as it ap- 
 pears in its three forms of water, snow, and ice — under 
 all the circumstances, their essential elements are un- 
 changed ; it is now water, then snow, then it is ice, 
 although known under the signification of water, snow, 
 and ice, yet it is capable of being resolved into one and 
 the same substance. Thus I hold that the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, are equal in every essential principle 
 of their being ; that they possess all the divine attributes ; 
 hence, they are one God — and this is the only God I 
 know and worship ; the only God that I recognize, or 
 that we are commanded to worship. 
 
 The angel that came down to the Isle of Patmos. and 
 that appeared to John, refused worship. Angels came 
 to Abraham, but worship was never allowed to be paid 
 to them, or any inferior creature. God will not allow it. 
 He is a jealous God. But I would earnestly desire your 
 enlightenment, my brother, not that I wish to copy your 
 manner. I would like to be able, in a forcible manner, 
 to show you the obligations you are under to worship 
 Christ. I do it because of the importance of admitting 
 the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in one 
 person — one undivided God. 
 
 When the sick man came to Jesus, he said, " Take up 
 thy bed and walk." Christ's name was sufficient hitherto; 
 I therefore assume that Christ has infinite power. He 
 further proclaimed, Thy sins, which were many, are all 
 forgiven thee." When the Jews questioned concerning 
 him, he said, " The Son of man hath power on earth to 
 forgive sins." I assume, therefore, that Christ is a 
 proper object of worship. There can be no such thing 
 as a conflict in the Divine mind. They are one in 
 substance, and can not disagree ; one in power, and 
 can not disagree ; one in glory, and can not disagree ; for 
 we are commanded to honor the Son as we honor the 
 Father. Hence, if I honor not the Son as the Father, I 
 honor not God. Hence I enjoin you all to worship 
 Christ, not as a mere man ; do not worship him as some 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 251 
 
 inferior being, for no such inferior Jesus is known in 
 Leaven. 
 
 Mr Summekbell's Seventeenth address : 
 
 Kind Friends — I desire to call especial attention to the 
 style of my brother, in replying to texts, and his manner 
 of disposing of them. Mark xiii, 32. Jesus says that 
 he does not know the date of the end of the world. My 
 brother replies, by endeavoring to prove that he does. 
 John xi, 15. " I am glad that 1 was not there." He 
 replies, by roundly asserting that he was there — that he 
 was everywhere. 1 Cor. xv, 34. "All things are put 
 under him," &c. My brother replies, wittily, that unless 
 God was put under him all must mean part, and disputes 
 the fact. On John xvii, 3, where Jesus says that his 
 Father is the only true God, brother Flood says, that the 
 Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the 
 Father. 1 Cor. viii, 6, ''But to us there is but one 
 God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and 
 we by him." This he can not be prevailed upon to 
 touch. To Eph. iv, 4-8, where the Father is said to be 
 over both Son and Holy Ghost, my brother makes no 
 reply at all. Now these texts, with thousands of others, 
 are capable of no explanation, in accordance with my 
 brother's creed, or Constitution and Discipline, and he 
 knows it. This is the reason, that instead of answering 
 me, he barely objects that he does not believe that God is 
 seated on a throne, (Rev. v,) or that the Lamb took the 
 book out of his riglit hand. He objects to my quoting 
 his own authorities ; evades over twenty-two cardinal 
 difficulties in his theory, and after I have cited him to 
 over thirteen thousand texts, reading, and giving him 
 chapter and verse for over five hundred of them, he begs 
 the question by saying that he believes in one God I 
 And when I press him with his own authors, who aban- 
 don nearly every position taken by him, as untenable, he 
 declares that he cares not for the hest of them. Yery 
 
252 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 well ; I knew that he would come to that. Were they 
 truly orthodox, they would agree better, but error and 
 contradiction are inseparable. 
 
 My brother in one breath confesses the Eternal Son^ 
 and in the next denies it. I want him, once for all, to 
 tell us, if he believes the Bible, that God had a Son in 
 eternity, by whom he made the worlds. Heb. i, 1. Now 
 ])rother don't dodge the point, but explain yourself. My 
 brother is like, they say, Arius was, professing to honor 
 Christ by collecting a great many high-sounding titles, 
 while he believed him to be a mere creature ; so ray 
 brother believes the Son only eighteen hundred years old, 
 yet calls him Jehovah, &c. One mistake my brother 
 makes is, that in speaking of the greatness of the Son of 
 God, he tries to forget that we hold that he has received 
 a name which is above every name^ and is worthy of all 
 those honors because he is God''s Son. Now he should 
 show that if God had a Son in eternity^ (which he seems 
 to deny,) that that Son of God could not be thus great 
 by the union of God with him^ as well as my brother's 
 u ^^y,y 'f^ian.'^'' Attend to this point, brother. Trinitari- 
 ans and Socinians alike, have but one God, as their 
 creeds teach, and one man — while the Christians have 
 God, and the Son of God for Mediator— and also what 
 my opponent calls the human body. You see, to those 
 for whom one God, the Father, is sufficient, my brother's 
 work of creating another is superfluous, while by making 
 the Supreme God of the Son, he destroys the Divine 
 Mediator, while he adds nothing to God. 
 
 My brother has several times intimated that 1 did not 
 tell you what I believed about the Saviour. lie does not 
 seem to perceive any meaning in the words ''^Son of 
 Gody So many, he says, are called sons of God, both 
 angels and men ; but my brother should remember that 
 the same is true of God and other names. To please my 
 brother, I will say again, that I believe that Jesus Christ 
 is " the only begotten Son " of the living God., by whom 
 ■ God made the worlds, saves the world, and will judge 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 263 
 
 the world. And since my brother calls this ambiguous, 
 I here invite him to find one place in all the Bible where 
 any other person is called the only begotten Son of God ! 
 Will that do ? The truth is. my friends, my brother has 
 rejected the doctrine that Christ is the Son of God, and 
 be now makes this ado about my faith to divert your 
 attention from his own Eoraan Catholic creed. The 
 brother need not be alarmed about our faith ; it is the 
 best in all the world. He says we have a great God and 
 a little God, because Christ, a very few times, is called 
 God in the Bible, with many others. But being called 
 God does not make either him or them God. Christ is 
 called a Lion, a Lamb, a Door, a Vine, and the like ; 
 yet we do not believe that he is literally either. We 
 believe that he is the Son of God. We have no great 
 God and little God. We did not receive our faith from 
 Wesley, nor the Church of England, nor Germany, nor 
 Rome ; flesh and blood revealed it not, but '*our Father 
 which is in heaven." Mat. xvi. 17. Our faith has all 
 the promises ; our creed is the Bible, and is from eighteen 
 hundred to four thousand years old. Deny our doctrine, 
 the Bible, and what is their creed worth ? Deny our 
 God, and what is their Trinity worth ? Deny our Son of 
 God, and what is their human sacrifice worth ? Deny 
 our conversion, and what is their probation woilh ? Deny 
 the Christian, and what is Methodist Protestant worth"^? 
 Will that do, brother ? If it won't, I will at any proper 
 time meet you on that question, and affirm on my faith 
 to your heart's content. Be it remembered, that my 
 brother, though he will not confess that he worships a 
 creature as God, yet if he worships all of his God, 
 human and divine ; all of his Christ, human and divine, 
 and he intimates that he does, then he worships very 
 man, a creature, as God — God Supreme^ and proves 
 himself guilty of the grossest idolatry, according to his 
 own theory. 
 
 Now, so far from holding the Son of God inferior to my 
 brother's Saviour, we hold him higher than they hold their 
 
254 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 God. Tliey think that if God gave Christ all power in 
 heaven and in earth, that this would include all the power 
 God possessed, and consequently, God would cease to 
 exist. Now we believe that the Son of God received all 
 this power in addition to power before possessed, and is, 
 consequently, greater in power than they hold their God ; 
 while we regard the Father as possessing unbounded 
 power, unlimited by heaven, earth, or any other bounds. 
 Thus much for Christ's power. As to his goodness, we 
 regard his character so sacred, that when he says, "I 
 came out from God," we believe him ; when he says, 
 ''My Father is greater than I," we believe him ; when 
 he says, '* Ye shall see the Son of man standing on the 
 right hand of God," we believe him ; when he says, "I 
 can of mine own self do nothing," we believe him. We 
 do not think it idolatiy to worship him ; we do not doubt 
 his power to save us ; we do not doubt his faithfulness ; 
 we do not call him. ^^very man — -perfect Tmmanity ^"^ 
 good as Adam; but THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON 
 OF THE LIVING GOD. But when Jesus says, "I 
 came out from God," my brother don't believe it. When 
 he says, "All power in heaven and in earth is given unto 
 him," my brother does not believe it. When he says. 
 
 My Father is greater than I," my brother does not be- 
 lieve it. He says, if Christ received all power, he can 
 not trust him. I warn you not to trust him^ if he can 
 not trust his Saviour. His reverend brethren say, if he 
 was not the eternal God, the Jews did well to crucify 
 him. as a noted impostor, not worthy a name in history. 
 
 My brother says, that Jesus was very God and very 
 man, and yet only one person. I will now present an ar- 
 gument on the two natures on the cross, and see whether 
 he will abandon his Christ or his creed. 
 
 If, as my brother says, Jesus and God were both in one 
 Christ, and only constituted one person ; then, if God is 
 a person, (and if not, my brother falls into Atheism) 
 when God left Jesus to die on the cross, then one person 
 left, (but as only one pei*son was there,) and all the per- 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 255 
 
 son left the cross, so that there was no person remaining 
 on the cross — no pei*son died ; no pei-son was buried ; no 
 person rose ; " our faith is vain — we are yet in our sins 
 and those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished ; 
 and my brother thus destroys the whole plan of our sal- 
 vation. 
 
 My brother objects to my calling his three persons, 
 three Gods ; but if they have all the infinite attributes, 
 why are they not three Gods ? what do they lack to con- 
 stitute them Gods ? Wherein do they differ from tkree 
 Gods f If not three Gods, what are they ? Persons ? 
 So are men, persons ; and three men would not make one 
 God. What are they? Spirits! But so are angels; 
 yet three angels would not make one God. What are 
 they ? If not three men, nor three angels, to what class 
 of intelligences do they belong ? They are not three sons 
 of God ; where will my brother class them ? K I were 
 to speak of three persons, and say that they are neither 
 three sons of God, three angels, nor three men, and re- 
 fused to tell what three they were, would you not say 
 that I was avoiding the issue ? Gen. i, 1, " the Gods 
 my brother says, and gives Watson for his authority, 
 "jfiVMm, the Gods;^^ let my brother then, no more 
 deny that he has Gods, and has given up the first article 
 of his Constitution and Discipline entirely, which says, 
 that there is but one God. 
 
 My brother said, that the council of Constantinople, 
 (which Gregory Nazianzen compares, Gib. iii, 79, to 
 wasps, magpies, cranes, and geese,) only settled the doc- 
 trine of the essential Trinity, instead of giving it the finish- 
 ing touch ; but I proved to him that the Trinity was not 
 perfected as to the procession (?) of the Holy Ghost, until 
 A. D., 638. Mosheim i, 224. I want my brother to 
 answer this. He inti*oduced John Brown, ex parte evi- 
 dence, of no authority on the question. 
 
 My friend objected to my saying, that he has Gods, or 
 three Gods ; and yet, again insists on translating Elohim 
 the ''Gods." I ask my brother to tell us how many it 
 
256 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 takes to make it ]^roper to call them Gods ? I hope my 
 brotlier will explain again, the explanation that the word 
 means Gods, and he will call it Gods; but that he does 
 not raean Gods, will not do. 
 
 My friend, after denying that Christ could be eternal 
 as the Son of God, now says, that as man will not be 
 annihilated, he is, in some sense, eternal ; so that he has 
 untold (?) millions of eternals. Yet he has nothing to 
 atone God, and pay an infinite demand, but a perfect 
 human sacrifice, good as Adam. But my brother has 
 never yet explained this in connection with Clarke, with 
 whom he agrees, who says that God will no more accept 
 of man's blood in sacrifice, than swine's blood. I urge 
 my brother's attention to this. 2 Sam. xxi, 10. 
 
 He still urged, that Is. ix, 6, in opposition to all the 
 Trinitarian authorities I produced, should be understood 
 as making the cliild born, the human nature; and that 
 the Mighty God, {al gihhor) the same as Gabriel, the 
 name of the angel, meant the divine nature — thus teach- 
 ing Socinianism. 
 
 His quotation from Clarke, on Genesis i, is an effort 
 of the author to sustain his creed. Clarke traces Elohim 
 back to the Arabic, where he thinks the root is n^N {alah) 
 in Arabic, with the " {yod) dropped, and the h {lamed) 
 doubled. He then goes to alaha^ but nowhere in all 
 this, does he find proof, that any considered El, Elohim^ 
 Alohirn, Al, Alah, or Allah as meaning more than one ; 
 but rather, all idea of plurality runs out. 
 
 Trinitarians have long taught and preached against 
 humanity being a sufficient sacrifice to atone divinity, 
 and denounced us as Socinians ; and asserted that a human 
 Saviour, or any less than God, was unworthy of trust. 
 Yet it is now clear to all, that we have a divine Saviour ; 
 "while they have no more than the Socinian. Now is the 
 time to demonstrate it if they have. Both Socinians and 
 Trinitarians admit one God. and but one ; and one man 
 beside for a sacrifice and mediator, and but one. Both ad- 
 mit that the Mighty God dwelt in the man Jesus. Both 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 257 
 
 admit tliat the man was in close union with, and sancti- 
 fied by, the divine nature. But the Trinitarian starts off 
 from the Socinian, with the withering exclamation, that 
 a human sacrifice is not sufficient. He then attempts to 
 prove the Deity of Christ ; but not the Christ which was 
 Been, and suffered ; not the Christ who bled and died ; 
 but some imaginary, invisible Christ or nature which was 
 in that Christ. And after traveling all around the theo- 
 logical circle, multiplying the divine nature without 
 either increasing the deity or changing the sacrifice, he 
 meets the Socinian just where he left him, with but one 
 God, and one human sacrifice. The Christians alone, 
 hold to a divine sacrifice. My brother compares God to 
 water, ice, and snow, three conditions of water — a cold, 
 watery argument — but not applicable. The Trinity is not 
 three conditions of God, nor is Jesus a condition of God. 
 John the Baptist (John i, 34,) said, "I saw and bare 
 record, that this is the Son of God." The evil spirits 
 said, Matt, viii, 29, " We know thee, who thou art, the 
 Christ the Son of God." The centurion exclaimed, Mark 
 XV, 39, "Of a truth this is the Son of God." Nathaniel 
 said, John i, 49, "Thou art the Son of God." Jesus 
 said, John x, 34, "I said I am the Son of God." God 
 himself said, Matt, iii, 17, "This is my beloved Son." 
 He is called, God^s oum Son — God's only hegotten Son 
 — God's icell-heloved Son — the Son of the living God ; 
 language never used of any other being in the universe. 
 It would not do to call God the beloved Son of God. 
 "And to which of the angels said he at any time, thou 
 art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? " Heb. i, 5. 
 No man is Christ the Lord. Only the Son of God is 
 of God. Not the supreme God, but the Son of God, Matt, 
 xvi, 16 ; is the form of God, Philip, ii, 6 ; the image of 
 God, Heb. i, 3; the power of God, 1 Cor. i, 24; the 
 wisdom of God, 1 Cor. i, 24 ; the word of God, Eev. xix, 
 13 ; the servant of God, Matt, xii, 18 ; elect of God, Is. 
 xlii, 1 ; at the right hand of God, Acts vii, 55 ; anointed 
 of God, Acts ii, 36 ; ordained of God, Acts xvii, 31 ; 
 22 
 
258 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 appointed of God, Heb. iii, 1 ; High-priest of God, Heb. 
 V, 10. So also, how could he come out from God ? — go 
 back to God ? How can Jesus be at God's right hand, 
 and yet be that God at whose right hand he is? I want 
 my brother to explain this. I want him also to demon- 
 strate to us, how it was such a great manifestation of 
 God's love to us, to give perfect humanity to die for us ? 
 God professes to manifest his love by the gift of his Son ; 
 but how does this prove God's love, if that Son is nothing 
 but a " very man," even though that human being be 
 "(25 perfect as Adam f " It is still a man. I have men- 
 tioned that Dr. Watts, the Christian poet, abandond the 
 Trinity in his maturer years, and would have destroyed 
 those Trinitarian doxologies they love to sing, but that he 
 had sold the copyright of his book. Let me read you a 
 prayer of his about the Trinity. It is one of the best 
 prayers ever written. 
 
 Dr. Watts'^ Prayer. — " Dear and blessed God, hadst 
 thou been pleased in any one plain Scripture to have in- 
 formed me, which of the different opinions about the 
 holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, 
 had been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satis- 
 faction, and joy, my unbiased heart would have opened 
 itself to receive and embrace the divine discovery. 
 Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single text, that the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three real, distinct per- 
 sons, in th}^ divine nature, I had never suffered myself 
 to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed 
 with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere in- 
 ventions of men, instead of divine doctrine ; but I should 
 have humbly, and immediately accepted thy words, so 
 far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the 
 only rule of my faith ; for hadst thou been pleased so to 
 express and include this proposition in the several scat- 
 tered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and con- 
 science might, with ease, find out, and with certainty 
 infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all 
 piy reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 259 
 
 to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into 
 my soul. Thou has taught me, holy Father, by thy pro- 
 phets, that the way of holiness in the times of the Gospel, 
 or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a high- 
 way, a plain and easy path, so that the wajiaring man, 
 or the stranger, though a fool, shall not err therein ; and 
 thou hast called the poor and the ignorant, the mean and 
 foolish things of this world, to the knowledge of thyself 
 and thy Son, and taught them to receive and partake of 
 the salvation thou hast provided. But how can such 
 weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and 
 so abstruse a doctrine as this, in the explication and de- 
 fense whereof, multitudes of men, even men of learning 
 and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtil ties of 
 dispute and endless mazes of darkness ? And can this 
 sti-ange and perplexing notion of three real persons, 
 going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so 
 impoiiant a part of that Christian doctrine, which in the 
 Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain 
 and so easy, evtn to the meanest undei-standing !" 
 
 Here you see that this great poet, in his latter years, 
 discarded the doctrine of the Trinity. I will now present 
 some more texts, to prove that Jesus is not the supreme 
 God, which I want my brother to answer. 
 
 1 Cor. viii, 6, " To us there is but one God the Father 
 hence there is no other God. 
 
 Acts ii, 22, Jesus was " approved of God, by signs 
 and wonders, which God did by him hence he was not 
 the God who approved him. 
 
 John xiv, 2S, Jesus positively declares, " My father is 
 greater than I hence, he is not the supreme God. 
 
 John xiv, 10, The Father that dwelleth in me, he 
 doeth the works but the supreme God could not say this. 
 
 John vii, 16, My doctrine is not mine, but his that 
 Bent me l3ut of the supreme God, this is not true. 
 
 John V, 26, "The Father hath given the Son author- 
 ity;" but no Father could give the supreme God au- 
 thority. 
 
260 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Matt. XX, 23, " To sit at my right hand, &c., is not 
 mine to give, but for whom it is prepared of mv Father." 
 
 1 Cor. viii, 6, Christ is distinguished from God, as the 
 one " by whom are all things," in contradistinction from 
 God, of whom are all things." 
 
 John V, 57, Jesus says : I live by the Father ;" but 
 God is self-existent, and lives hy no one. 
 
 John viii, IT, "I am one who beareth witness of my- 
 self, and the Father that sent me, beareth witness of me 
 but God has no Father to bear witness of him. 
 
 Matt, iii, 17, God says : " This is my beloved Son ;" 
 but the supreme God is no one's Son. 
 
 1 John iv, l-i, " We have seen, and do testify that the 
 Father sent the Son ;" but no one ever sent God. 
 
 Heb. iii, 1, 2, " Jesus who is faithful to him who ap- 
 pointed him ;" but no one ever appointed God. 
 
 Eom. viii, 34, "Who is ever at the right hand of God, 
 who also maketh intercession for us ;" but God is not at 
 God's right hand interceding for us. 
 
 Jesus Christ positively disclaims the divine attribute 
 of omniscience. " But of that day and hour knoweth no 
 man, no, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son^'' "but 
 the Father only^ Mark xiii, 32 ; Matt, xxiv, 36. 
 
 Jesus Christ prayed to God. Luke xvi, 12. We have 
 a specimen of his prayers: John xvii, 5. "O Father, 
 glorify thou me, with thy own self, with the glory I had 
 with thee before the world was." And on the cross, he 
 cried, "My God, my God, why hast i\\o\\ forsaken me." 
 Matt, xxviii, 46. Could these prayei-s and exclamations 
 be uttered by the supreme God '{ 
 
 Supreme worship, according to the Scriptures, is 
 uniformly paid, not to Christ, hut to God^ the Father^ 
 through Christ. " I thank God through Jesus Christ.'''' 
 Eom. vii, 25. " To God only wise, be glory throitgh 
 Christ." Eom. xvi, 27. 
 
 Christ is worshiped as the Son, and " Lamb of God." 
 Heb. i, 8, and Eev. v, 13. 
 
 Jesus Christ is represented by the Kew Testament 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 261 
 
 writers, as the '-''Image of GodP Col. i, 15 ; 2 Cor. 
 iv, 4. Would it not be absurd to call any one his own 
 image f 
 
 Jesus Christ is called, in Scripture, " the first horn 
 among many hrethrenP Rom. viii, 27. But the su- 
 preme God has no brethren. 
 
 Jesus Christ is represented as receiving commands 
 from the Father. " The Father who sent me, gave me a 
 commandment;" John xii, 49; but no one can com- 
 mand God. 
 
 The Scriptures teach us, that God the Father hath 
 highly exalted the Lord Jesus Christ, and given him a 
 name which is above every name ;" Phil, ii, 9 ; but 
 no one has ever highly exalted God. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Seventeenth reply : 
 
 The manner in which my brother indulged in appeals, 
 when he got fairly under-way, is rather interesting. 
 Several times during the discussion, my brother seemed 
 anxious to know wliether we believed the divinity of 
 Jesus Christ received any part of the atonement. Such 
 phraseology we have never employed. And he inquired 
 whether we believed that satisfaction was rendered to the 
 divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as to the Father 
 and to the Holy Spirit ? This language, perhaps, is not 
 acceptable. " How much more," says the apostle, " shall 
 the blood of Jesus Christ, who, through the eternal 
 Spirit," &c.," purge your conscience." Here the apostle 
 declares that Christ offered himself, through the eternal 
 Spirit, without spot, to God. I refer him to Isaiah liii, 
 and to Gal. iii, ''Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
 of the law." Now, we inquire, what law, the law^ that 
 was violated ? the law of God ? How did he redeem us ? 
 By rendering satisfaction to the demands of that law, 
 fulfilling that law in our room and stead. " I came to 
 fulfill," &c. Also, Christ as God received satisfaction, as 
 stated by Dr. Brown, the terms used are applicable to the 
 supreme God, and equally so to Jesus Christ. We 
 
262 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 invite attention to Exodus iii, 14, " And God said unto 
 Moses, I am that I am ; and he said, Thus shalt thou say 
 unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. 
 God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say 
 unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your Fathers, 
 the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath 
 sent me unto you ; this is my name for ever, and this is 
 my memorial unto all generations." Exodus vi, 3. 
 " And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and Jacob, 
 by the name of God Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah 
 was I not known to them." We invite attention to Dr. 
 Clarke on this passage, proving Christ is this "I Am." 
 
 Clarke, Yol. i. Exodus iii, 14, 15. "'And God said 
 unto Moses, I am that I am ; and he said, Thus shalt 
 thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me 
 unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus 
 shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God 
 of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
 and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you ; this is 
 my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all gen- 
 erations.' Chap, vi, 3, ' And I appeared unto Abra- 
 ham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God 
 Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to 
 them.' ' By the name of God Almighty, El Shaday^ God 
 All-sufficient, God the dispenser or pourer out of gifts.' 
 ' But by my name Jehovah was I not known to them ;' 
 this passage has been a sort of cntx criticorura^ and has 
 been variously explained. It is certain that the name Je- 
 liovah was in use long before the days of Abraliam. See 
 Gen. ii, 4, where the words, Jehovah, Elohim, occur as 
 they do frequently afterward ; and see Gen. xv, 2, where 
 Abraham expressly addresses him by the name Adonai^ 
 Jehovah ; and see the seventh verse, where God reveals 
 himself to Abraham by this very name : and he said, I 
 am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees. 
 How, then, can it be said that by his name Jehovah he 
 was not known unto them ? Several answers have been 
 given to this question ; the following are the chief : First, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 263 
 
 The word sliould be read interrogatively, for the negative 
 particle lo^ not^ has this power often in Hebrew. I ap- 
 peared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of 
 God Almighty ; and by my name Jehovah was I not also 
 made known unto them ? The name Jehovah, was not 
 revealed before the time mentioned here ; for, though it 
 occurs so frequently in the book of Genesis, that book was 
 mitten long after the name had come into common use. 
 As a principal characteristic of God, Moses employs it in 
 his history, because of this circumstance ; so that when- 
 ever it appears previously to this, it is by the figure 
 called prolepsis or anticipative. As the name Jehovah 
 signifies existence, it may be understood in the text in 
 question, thus : I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, by my name God Almighty, or God All-sufficient, 
 having all power to do all good. In this character I 
 made a covenant with them, supported by great and glo- 
 rious promises, but as those promises had respect to their 
 posterity, they could not be fulfilled to those fathers ; but 
 now, as Jehovah, I am about to give existence to all 
 those promises relative to your support, deliverance from 
 bondage, and your consequent settlement in the promised 
 land. The words may be considered as used compara- 
 tively, though God did appear to those patriarchs as 
 Jehovah, and they acknowledged him by this name ; yet it 
 was but comparatively known unto them. They knew no- 
 thing of the power and goodness of God, in comparison 
 with what the Israelites were now about to experience. 
 I believe the simple meaning is this : that though from 
 the beo;inninoj the name Jehovah was known as one of 
 the names of the supreme Being, yet what it really im- 
 plied they did not know. Et Shaday^ God All-sufficient, 
 they knew well by the continual provision he made for 
 them, and the constant protection he afforded them ; but 
 the name Jehovah is particularly to be referred to the 
 accomplishment of promises already made ; to the giving 
 them a being, and thus bringing them into existence, 
 which could not have been done in the order of his 
 
264 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 providence sooner than here specified. This name, there- 
 fore, in its power and supremacy, was not known unto 
 them, nor fully known unto their descendants, until the 
 deliverance from Egypt, and the settlement in the pro- 
 mised land. It is surely possible for a man to bear the 
 name of a certain office or dignity before he fulfills any 
 of its functions. King, mayor, alderman, magistrate, 
 constable, may be borne by the several persons to whom 
 they legally belong, before any of the acts peculiar to 
 those offices are performed. The king, acknowledged as 
 such on his coronation, is known to be such by his legis- 
 lative acts ; the civil magistrate, by his distribution of 
 justice, and issuing warrants for the apprehending of cul- 
 prits; and the constable, by executing those warrants. 
 All these were known to have their respective names ; 
 but the exercise of their powers alone shows what is im- 
 plied in being king, magistrate, or constable. Ex. vi, 7, 
 ^ And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be 
 to you a God : and ye shall know that I am the Lord 
 your God, which bringeth you out from under the bur- 
 dens of the Egyptians.' (Note.) ' And ye shall know 
 that I am the Lord (Jehovah) your God ; by thus fulfill- 
 ing my promises, ye shall know what is implied in my 
 name.' " 
 
 Here the Word, according to this learned author, re- 
 lates to him who is possessed of self-existence, and is all- 
 sufficient ; and who is to fulfill all the promises that are 
 made, respecting the redemption of the human race. 
 " Of that hour knoweth no man but the Father only." 
 
 Clark says, " Where this language is applied to the 
 Son it is wanting in all the rest of the evangelists, and he 
 regards it as spurious." This Arian text I will ofiset with 
 1 John V, 7, which my brother modestly said was a Trinita- 
 rian forgery. He says, we avoid reference to Christ 
 sitting at the right hand of God. How often will my 
 brother require me to return to this sitting at the right 
 hand ? It was the custom of Orientals, that he ^y\\o sat 
 at the right hand at meat was fii*st in honor and rank, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 265 
 
 and the one on the left was second ; and it was in view 
 of this custom, that the mother of the two disciples asked 
 this favor for her children. I press my brother, to know 
 whether this is a literal fact : that God is literally seated 
 somewhere high up in the heaven. Christ being at the 
 right hand of God — is in the immediate favor of God — 
 highest in the favor of God as the Eedeemer of our race, 
 and intercessor between God and man — occupying the 
 highest place in this interesting character. If in Jesus 
 resides all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, I would 
 ask how it is, that Jesus, in whom dwells all the fullness 
 of the Godhead bodily, is upon the right hand of this 
 God ? If my brother will explain this difficulty, I will 
 nnravel his. I should like to know if God has a right 
 band, literally, and Christ occupies the literal right hand 
 of God ? He refers to Hebrews — " about God creating 
 the world by Christ " — and wishes to know whether by 
 his Son he created the world ? I have stated that in his 
 Divine nature he was eternal . The apostle, speaking of 
 him as the begotten of the Father, speaks of him, prop- 
 erly, as the Son of God, and I believe in him as the Son 
 of God. It is a mere quibble with regard to God having 
 a Son. He is one person in the blessed Trinity — the 
 Logos, that was in the beginning — this became flesh and 
 dwelt among us ; he is entitled to the title of the Son of 
 God, and his humanity, united with the Divinity, consti- 
 tutes one person. My brother now complains of my 
 stamping in the pulpit. I was amused at my brother 
 clapping his hands, and thumping the pulpit. I have a 
 request to make, brother. I hope you will not knock this 
 pulpit down ; for I want a place to stand when your sys- 
 tem falls. He tells us Jesus Christ is the only begotten 
 Son of God. Who disputed this ? He is now just as 
 much inclined to avoid the true issue, as he was the 
 first day. He has not given us the true character of God, 
 or Christ, from the commencement of the debate to the 
 end. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is entertained 
 by all Trinitarians. He goes on to say, that our creed is 
 23 
 
266 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 a Roman Catholic creed. Yery courteous in my brother, 
 thus to come forward and charge us with havinc^ a Roman 
 Catholic creed. Hear that remark, my auditors, and say 
 what it is worth. What could he have in view but draw- 
 ing, when further argument failed, the Trinity into disre- 
 pute ? He ought to know that true, respectable Protest- 
 ant divines, in all ages, have maintained the position I 
 contend for; he so admitted, that they were in the 
 majority — but I would not persecute him because he is 
 in the minority ; whereas the majority, the learned, and 
 God-fearing of all generations, stand upon this great 
 doctrine. Are they found occupying the views of my 
 brother, that Christ is an angel or man ? If I worship 
 Christ in this light, as a creature, then I am an idolater. 
 I have no right to worship Jesus Christ, if he be in any 
 sense whatever, in the Divine nature, inferior to God ; 
 for God has prohibited all such worship, pronouncing it 
 idolatry. And if we may worship one creature, we may 
 worship any creature that our imagination might be 
 directed to. My brother has often pressed the proposi- 
 tion, that in having a human nature associated wdth the 
 Divine, I am an idolater. The human nature, I have 
 informed him, is the medium through which the blessings 
 of Christ should flow to our race ; his blood redeemed 
 us, and yet he does not apply that language in its 
 full literal signification. But it was this blood of the 
 cross which was identified with the Divine nature, so 
 that God might be just and the justifier of all those that 
 believe in him. Now, he goes on to speak in a difierent 
 manner, to what he has done for a day or two. Again, 
 my brother says, " You take our doctrine out of his, and 
 what will be left ? Nothing but shell and chaff." Now 
 I have not said of my brother's doctrine, that it was shell 
 and chafi*; but it seems to me his doctrine must possess 
 somewhat of the nature of the latter, for there is not 
 sufficient weight in it to be brought into view. He has 
 been trying for a number of days, to tell us that he is the 
 only begotten Son of God, and he is willing to defend 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 267 
 
 this doctrine — Ms doctrine. This you will not call 
 begging the question, will you ? So learned a man as 
 my brother, would never think of committing a logical 
 blunder of this kind. He says, that Christ did have 
 all power — all power in heaven and all power on earth, 
 and yet that more power than all that was given him. I 
 would like to know where that power existed, if he had 
 all power in heaven to sustain the life and bless infinitely 
 the world, and on earth to sustain the laws of nature, 
 and all power necessary to preserve everlasting exist- 
 ence ? And- yet, he says, there was other power, that 
 Christ, a creature inferior to the Father, possessed. 
 
 Here is the absurdity that he created himself: for all 
 things were made by him, and for him, and without him 
 was not anything made, that was made ; he possessed all 
 power. Then he charges me with dodging the question. 
 These are among the criticisms I have received from 
 my brother, after a hard day's discussion. Now, if this 
 should appear in a book, I should appear to be tracing my 
 brother for ever round and round, over the same ground ; 
 this is the only reason why I desire that it should not 
 appear in print. Any one may judge, what may be ex- 
 pected during the day ; if you wish for a jolly rout of it, 
 I will try to be in your neighborhood : do the work you 
 have undertaken, and there will not be a hair between 
 you and heaven. He stuck up a book, to ihustrate the 
 Trinity ; and wanted to know when Christ died, and God 
 was withdrawn, whether there was any other person left 
 on the cross ? As the divinity withdrew, the unsupported 
 humanity sank down under the w^eight, and had not the 
 divinity withdrawn, all the power in earth, and hell, could 
 not have taken that life. See Articles of Religion : First, 
 "There is but one living, and true God everlasting ; with- 
 out body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and good- 
 ness ; the maker and preserver of all things, visible, and 
 invisible, and in unity of this Godhead, there are three 
 persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
 
268 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 Second, " The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the 
 very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, 
 took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, so 
 that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the 
 Godhead, and manhood, were joined together in one 
 person, never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ — very 
 God, and very man — who truly suffered ; was crucified, 
 dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be 
 a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual 
 sins of men." 
 
 He cried, it is finished ; all the t^'pes and shadows 
 that had pointed to him, met at the cross, and received 
 their final consummation ; he became a sacrifice under 
 the law for righteousness. As the divine nature with- 
 drew, the human nature was sanctified, by enduring the 
 agonies of the cross. I assert that Christ possessed but 
 one person in his divine and liuman nature ; he is one 
 in substance, power, and eternity. My brother is not for- 
 tunate enough to see the proposition ; indeed, he has 
 never made the discovery of his own proposition. 
 
 Me. Summerbell's Eighteenth address : 
 
 Will the Moderators please to read the proposition 
 again : 
 
 "Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth in the Discipline of 
 the Methodist Protestant Church, especially -with regard to the 
 equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, in substance, power, 
 glory and eternity, contrary to the teaching of the AVord of God V 
 
 My brother does not seem to like my close argument 
 this morning, and I was afraid that he would not. He 
 quotes something about satisfaction being rendered by 
 Jesus to the divine nature of Christ ; let him find this 
 doctrine in the Bible, if he can. If he will refer to Is. 
 liii, 4-6, he will see that "by his stripes ive are healed," 
 not God. His blood purges our conscience from dead 
 works, to serve the living God. What satisfaction is 
 there in that ? That is the Christian doctrine ; there 
 is nothing said about satisfaction, but salvation. What 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 269 
 
 an idea, that the Son of God should die to render him- 
 self satisfaction ! to pay himself ! for my brother makes 
 out that the person on tlie cross died to pay, and to satisfy 
 himself. Gal. iii, 13, reads: "He has redeemed us 
 from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." 
 That is all veiy good doctrine ; but it says nothing about 
 satisfaction to God. For what reason does he wish to 
 go ofl* on the doctrine of the atonement ? I suppose he 
 has preached a good sermon on that subject, and now ho 
 wishes to turn off your attention, by rehearsing it, and 
 so divert your minds from the main argument. He 
 quotes Dr. Brown on his side, but what authority is that 
 to me ? He quotes, " I Am that I Am but lie does not 
 believe that the Jesus on the cross was the " I Am " al- 
 luded to. Let me now direct your attention to an argu- 
 ment, showing from the Word of God, that you can not 
 depend upon the assumption, that wherever the word 
 Lord, in small capitals, occurs in our translation of the 
 Old Testament, it is Jehovah in the original. 
 
 Gen. XV, 7, God said to Abraham : I am the Lord," 
 i. e., Jehovah^ if that assumption be correct ; but four 
 hundred years after, he said to Moses, Ex. vi, 2, 3, By my 
 name Jehovah I was not known to Abraham." So that 
 nothing is more certain, than that no dependence is to 
 be placed upon the translation, or even the occurrence, in 
 the original, of a single word. My brother fails in this, 
 as in every thing else. He cannot succeed, simply, 
 because the creed is contrary to the Bible. Its doctrine, 
 its discipline, its precepts and principles, belong to a 
 later age. How wrong then, it is, to call them orthodox. 
 My brother says that there is not a hair between me and 
 heaven. There is not a hair between him and a worse 
 place than heaven ! Perhaps my brother would prefer 
 that I should reply to his wit ; but that does not prove 
 the Trinity ! He says that I would baptize in the name 
 of an Lifiuence. Oh no ! I believe in the Holy Ghost. 
 I only proposed that he had letter call it God's Spirit- 
 ual Influence, than to call it the third person in the 
 
270 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 Trinity, and then swing it beneath the throne, as a 
 pendulum. 
 
 You see what my brother attempts to prove, amounts 
 to nothing. The longer he disputes, the worse he is off. 
 His doctrine would stand more fair if he would not reply 
 to me at all; for if he attempts to reply he gets into 
 trouble, from which he finds it impossible to extricate 
 himself. He feels this himself. A man that boasts he 
 has all the literature of the world on his side, as to doc- 
 trines, beliefs, &c., must feel himself in a sad dilemma 
 to get along as poorly as my opponent does. He first 
 admits that this is not in the Bible, and then that that is 
 not in the Bible. First he says, that God has no bod}"; 
 and then that God has a body. That God and the very 
 man are one, and that the}^ can not be divided ; and then 
 that they were divided three days and three nights. His 
 own authors admit that his chief text is forged ; but he 
 sets ofi' an admitted Trinitarian forgery against another 
 Trinitarian forgery, by charging it upon the Arians. 
 What does Macknight say about the Arian forging ? 
 Let me read: " Mill saith, o$ and o were substituted in 
 place of the true reading, notj however, by the Arians," 
 &c. Macknight, on 1 Tim. iii, 16, Though orthodox, 
 does not accuse the Arians of the forgery of this text. 
 My brother is a ready man to speak, but he finds the 
 doctrine of the Trinity has passed away like the early 
 cloud and the morning dew, and he knows not where to 
 find it. 
 
 Heb, i, 3, " God created the w^orld by his Son," yet 
 stands. It can not be explained away by my brother. 
 It is like the branch of a tree — if you force it from its 
 place, the moment that it is released it flies back again. 
 So the truth remains in defiance of all explanations. He 
 says that he wants a place on which to stand when my 
 system is gone down. He will have a long time to wait. 
 My brother should know that the most eminent men in 
 the world are embracing, as the only true Bible doctrine, 
 this system at the present time. The Roman Catholics 
 
DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 2T1 
 
 made the first Trinitarian creed, and the Protestants ob- 
 tained theirs from the Roman Catholics. But they must 
 go down. My brother says that the most noted names 
 are on his side. What are the names that are quoted 
 against the Christian doctrine ? If we w^ish to quote the 
 eminent men in favor of it, to what abler names could 
 we refer than to Milton, Xewton, Locke ? and these men 
 held the same views which I hold. In our own country 
 I should refer to such men as J. Q. Adams, Fillmore, and 
 Worcester. Are such men to be put down and called no- 
 body ? They are claimed by those called orthodox ; and 
 yet they held our views. My brother says of the title ^ 'Soii 
 of God^^' that it is an indefinite term. I ask him to find 
 one text in all God's book, where an angel or man is 
 called the onhj begotten Son of God." If he can not 
 find any one pei-son in all heaven and earth, but Jesus 
 Christ, so named, let him not call it ambiguous. But 
 the name God is an indefinite term ; it is given to Moses, 
 to magistrates, to angels, and to men. Jesus so recog- 
 nises it in John x, 34, "Is it not written in your law, I 
 said ye are Gods V " He called them Gods to whom the 
 Word of God came," &c. 
 
 My brother does not know what to make of the appel- 
 lation the Son of God." It seems a very obscure term 
 to him. It means nothing in his view ! nothing at all ! 
 Why, he says. Son of God! The angels are the sons of 
 God. But I ask, "To which of the angels said God at 
 any time. Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten 
 thee ; (or) I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to mo 
 a Son V Heb. i, 5. Do you not see, my brother, that 
 you contradict the plainest teachings of the Bible ? 
 Though he can not understand the meaning of the term 
 Son of God, because he thinks it sometimes applied to 
 angels, and thinks that it can not possibly prove that 
 Jesus is the Son of God ; yet he sees no ambiguity in 
 the term God, though it is constantly applied both to 
 angels and men in the Bible, and but a very few times 
 to Christ. But if it is such an ambiguous text, why did 
 
272 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 not .Jesus tell Peter so, instead of blessing liim, when he 
 said. *'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ?" 
 All the promises and blessings attached to the Gospel 
 faith, are predicated upon the admission of this fact ; and 
 yet my brother calls it ambiguous. The truth is, he does 
 not believe it. Nothing is more clearly stated in the 
 Word of God, than that Jesus is the Son of God ; and 
 my brother must know that his reasoning against it is 
 fallacious. My brother is in trouble to-day ; he has been 
 putting off answering the arguments from day to day till 
 the present time, and now they press down upon him, 
 and he knows not what to do. He is very much afraid 
 that the Debate will be published, because it makes him 
 go round and round. I thought, that he was getting 
 giddy. He is opposed to its being published ; and I knew 
 that he would be before we were half through. He will 
 still feel worse and worse ; but I do not know what he 
 will do about it. Do try to be reconciled, my brother. 
 If you did not want it published, you should not have 
 been here at all. He quotes the passage (mistranslated) 
 which speaks of the Uood of God; but he is very care- 
 ful to tell us that he does not believe it. But why, then, 
 does he quote it ? Thus he assumes his positions ; but 
 anticipating an attack, he abandons them — knowing them 
 to be untenable. First he flies this way, then that, cry- 
 ing. I don't mean it ; and then he turns another way, 
 and declares that he don't mean that. He calls me an 
 idolater; because, he says, that I worship Christ as a 
 creature ; and then admits that he worships all of his 
 Christ (very God and very man) as God ; thus admitting 
 that he worships a creature, and is an idolater — falling 
 under the condemnation he pronounced upon me, though 
 I have never assumed such a position. Are the saints 
 in heaven idolaters, who worship the Lamb that was 
 slain \ Are the angels idolaters, who worship the first- 
 begotten ? Were the Christian fathers idolaters ? Were 
 the eminent men I named, such as Eusebius, Dr. S. 
 Clarke, Sir Isaac !Xewton, John Locke, Milton, J. Q. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 273 
 
 Adams, &c., idolaters ? He talks of my making a logi- 
 cal blunder. And now I challenge him to show where, 
 through the whole of this discussion, I have made one 
 logical blunder. 
 
 He admitted that I had given up but one position ; 
 and you all know that that was one which I had never 
 taken. He thought that if Cln^ist received all power, 
 that then there was no power that he did not receive at 
 that time. But if there was no power but that conveyed 
 then, it follows that Christ had none before, and that none, 
 angels or men, had any after ; and that even Christ could 
 not have had any when he raised the dead. Such is the 
 effect of my brother's logic, and he can not dodge it. 
 The true meaning of the text, " all power is given," &c., 
 is, that God has given to Christ all authority and power 
 to carry on the work of redemption. But my brother's 
 theory annihilates his God, in spite of his artifice ; the 
 cap belongs to him, and he must wear it — the shoe may 
 pinch, but he must put it on. If he dislikes it, let him 
 abandon his theory. 
 
 He says, that sitting at the right hand of God, is sim- 
 ply an oriental figure of speech. So that, when John 
 saw the heavens opened, and Jesus standing at the right 
 hand of God, he simply saw a figure of speech — an ori- 
 ental figure of speech ! He thinks, that as God fills all 
 space, the Son could not literally come out from God, nor 
 sit at the right hand of God. I believe in the Omni- 
 presence of God, but not in a physical, bodily presence ; 
 that would preclude the possibility of any thing existing 
 outside of his person. God is Omnipresent to under- 
 stand all things by the perfection of his infinite intelli- 
 gence. He is present to see every thing ; because nothing 
 is hid from his all-piercing eye. His ear is open to all 
 places, not because of a local presence, but because of 
 the perfection of an intellectual presence. Our powers 
 are all bounded by a narrow circumference, and our pre- 
 sence extends but a short distance around us; yet our 
 presence extends beyond the space filled by our person ; 
 
274 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 but if their philosophy be correct, God's does not. The 
 wicked cannot be banished from, but must for ever dwell 
 in, God. My brother makes out, that God literally fills 
 every thing, even the lower regions of the lost are literal- 
 ly in God. That is a harsh idea, my brother! Abandon 
 it, I pray you. Again, Jesus positively denies being the 
 author of his own miracles. He declares that he was 
 not the author of the system he preached. My brother 
 contends that he was, and that God and Christ were 
 one being. I want him to explain this. Come up to 
 the work, my brother, and explain how it is Jesus said, 
 " The Son can do nothing of himself," and yet that he is 
 the eternal God ? I want my brother to explain, how 
 the first person in the Trinity begat Christ, and the last 
 person in the Trinity begat him ? and how thus he was 
 begotten by two persons, and had two Fathei-s ? This is 
 no isolated objection to the theory, nor peculiar blunder 
 of my brother. The system which he attempts to uphold, 
 involves five hundred as great absurdities as this ; and 
 were we to continue this debate ever so long, we should 
 still bring up as great absurdities as this for him to ex- 
 plain away. 
 
 Jesus Christ invariably refers to the Father as his 
 authority ; he says, the Father has given the Son author- 
 ity. Why can we not believe him ? Yet whether we 
 will or no, the truth remains, that God has a Son between 
 him and all creatures — a divine medium between the 
 Creator and the creature. This has ever been the doctrine 
 held by the most eminently enlightened men of all the 
 world. It has been the comfort and stay of thousands, 
 that we had a divine Mediator. But my brother, by de- 
 nying this divine medium, and assuming that the media- 
 tor is a mere man, has denied the existence of the true 
 Mediator. And I challenge him to show, that he has 
 any medium hettveen God and man. Paul says, "a me- 
 diator is not a mediator of one, but God is one''' — that is, 
 a mediator is not one of the parties. My brother says, 
 Christ is two — God and man ; but the God cannot be a 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 2T5 
 
 mediator letioeen God and man, for God is God himself, 
 and not hetween. Nor can the man be a mediator be- 
 tween man and God, for the man is man himself, and not 
 hetween. Is it not proper to say tliat Christ is the only 
 begotten Son of God ? Then why not believe it ? Is it 
 right to call GocVs Son — only begotten Son, a creature ? 
 Then why do it ? So long as there is none other called 
 the only hegotten and well heloved Son of God, the term 
 is not only not ambiguous, but very expressive. I want 
 my brother to explain how, if God and the man Jesus, 
 both make but one person, he can divide them so as to 
 have one to know what the other does not ? I want him 
 to tell us, if God and man make one Christ in but one 
 person ; and as he says, God left the man to die on the 
 cross, which w^as the one person ? the God who left, or the 
 man who remained ? If the God who left was a person, 
 and there was but one ; then no person remained on the 
 cross — no person sufiered — no person died — no person 
 was buried — no person rose — and thus he destroys the 
 whole plan of salvation ; but, if he says that the God that 
 left was not a person, then he falls into the Atheism of 
 which he accused me. If he says that the God who left 
 was a person, and the man who remained was also a per- 
 son, then he has two persons in Christ, and the creed is 
 false. Answer it as he will, the dilemma is unavoidable. 
 His creed is illogical, and his argument must be so; he 
 cannot avoid it. He has not yet answered my argu- 
 ments relating to the three persons. Come, my brother, 
 what are they ? If they are three angels, they would 
 not, united, make one God ! If they be three Gods, then 
 they are not one. To say they are three persons, is no 
 answer. Three men are three persons ; to say they are 
 three spirits would not answer. What are they, iif they 
 are not three men, nor three angels, nor three Sons of 
 God — what are they ? Come, my brother, you like us 
 to define, tell me now, are they three men, angels, or 
 Gods? or if neither — what are they? If you say three 
 Gods, you will thus agree with your'^choice translation 
 
276 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 of Eloliim^ the Gods. Which shall it be ? How much 
 easier, as well as more Scriptural, to believe that Jesus 
 is the only begotten Son of God, and that the Holy Ghost 
 is the Spirit of God ? How plain was the teaching of 
 Jesus — ever pointing us to the Father, as the only true 
 God! 
 
 Mr. Flood's Eighteenth reply : 
 
 I suppose I have the evidence clear, that my brother 
 had no other way of putting in his time, than by trying 
 again, when he thought his brother was in a great 
 dilemma, to increase his difficulty. It seems to me, that 
 that hell that was spoken of, is still more uncertain than 
 ever. My brother brings his little pamphlet, and he sets 
 Dr. Summerbell against Dr. Clarke. It is a pity the 
 poor doctor had not lived to this day, to witness the light 
 of this second Luther. It was the poor man's misfor- 
 tune, however. According to the general view, he was 
 the best, at least among the very best, that had ever 
 written on the original meaning of the sacred texts. 
 
 My brother refers to the question of Christ having no 
 power, and then having power. But I leave the question ; 
 it has been passed over times enough. He said, if all 
 power was given him then, then he had no power when 
 he raised the dead ; this, truly, is a remarkable conclusion 
 to be drawn from the premises. ''''All power is given 
 into my hand." Therefore Jesus had no power when he 
 raised the dead. If that is a logical conclusion, my 
 knowledge of logic is very limited. 
 
 My brother thinks his opponent's head is dizzy, and 
 would like to persuade you that I am crazy. He would 
 make you believe that I am a blower and striker, and on 
 this morning that he has met a crazy man. ^Here, his 
 bell will have to jingle louder about my ears, else I will 
 not allow my head to become unsteady in the least. He 
 wants to know how we shall have a mediator ? If Jesus 
 Christ is God, then he was no mediator ; for he was not 
 between God and man. If Jesus Christ were man, then 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITT. 
 
 277 
 
 he was not a mediator ; for then he could not be between. 
 It is a question between Paul and my brother Summer- 
 bell. There is one God and one Mediator between God 
 and man — the man Christ J esus. My brother, in so many 
 words, denies the statement of Paul, and says it is not 
 60. If Christ is a man, he can not be a mediator ; and 
 if God, he can not be a mediator. I would have you 
 know that not one position has been rendered doubtful, 
 by any one statement, since I have been here ; much less 
 has any point been given up, notwithstanding the touch- 
 ing appeals made for us, to give up Trinitarianism, 
 and his representing that I have nothing here but chaft* 
 and hulls, employing such phraseology as this, trying to 
 convince me that my doctrine should be at once aban- 
 doned, and tells you that his brother is in some difficulty ; 
 that his brother had felt himself in his last moments. 
 But I suppose it was because he had persuaded himself 
 that I would be closed up the first day, and sent home. 
 And my brother here wants to persuade the people, and 
 urges upon them, that my nerves are all shaken and my 
 head dizzy, and that I am just about to yield up my own 
 and adopt his system. But his Christ is neither God, 
 angel, nor man. Xow, here is the point to be met : I 
 want to know what his Christ now is ? He says he is 
 not God, nor man. Paul represents the human nature 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, to demonstrate the truth that 
 bis body was an earthly body. He says, "a spirit hath not 
 flesh and bones, as ye see me have ;"' he had a body, an 
 identical body, and took that body to heaven. If Christ 
 is not God, he, through his humanity, does not become 
 the visible likeness of God to the world, in the person of 
 the man Jesus Christ. Thus, I assert again, it is the basest 
 of idolatry to worship him. I do not make my brother 
 say this, but I draw the conclusion from premises laid 
 down. He desires to present Christ as an object of 
 worship, and he is not able to tell you what Christ is. I 
 tell you he is man and he is God — very and eteraal 
 God^— one with the Father. " The Word was with God 
 
278 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 and wa3 God," and was that Word that was made flesh, 
 and we beheld his gloi-y full of grace and truth. Now I am 
 close in vour neighborhood, and yet my brother insists 
 that his opponent has retreated ; that he has ayoided 
 eyery issue, dodged eyery question. If we haye a second 
 edition of this class of speeches, in the future, it will be 
 yery interesting to one class of people. I glory in my 
 doctrine. The more I reflect, the more I inyestigate, the 
 more deeply is my heart in this glorious doctrine of our 
 Sayiour I He is our Creator, our preseryer, and under- 
 stands all our wants ; he possesses all the perfections of 
 the Diyine mind. I haye shown that he possesses all 
 the attributes essential to the Divine mind ; he possesses 
 omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and then 
 I haye shown, immutability. If all things pass away, 
 we haye the assurance that he is the same. What is he ? 
 Would we could tell what he is. He says, my system 
 would not saye a cricket. My system is sufficient to 
 saye a whole lost world. We haye but one God ; three 
 persons in one, and one in three — the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost. I haye a system here that proves sufficient 
 for the salvation of all men. God's love to the world is 
 manifested in his looking to the wants and necessities of 
 all men ; in providing a Saviour just suited to their 
 condition, possessing all the infinite perfections of Jeho- 
 vah, capable of supplying our needs and wants, and in 
 whom, at the same time, were hidden the infinite trea- 
 sures of the Divine wisdom. As I have shown, the true 
 position is, that Christ, our Redeemer, is both God and 
 man. Through the man Jesus Christ, we have access to 
 God ; he is the medium of our approach, and appeai*eth in 
 the presence of God for us. To-day he is there — the 
 Almighty Being ; not a being destitute of knowledge ; 
 nor a being that may be imperfect. If, as my opponent 
 says, he is neither God nor angel, if he can conceive of 
 a being that is not the creature nor God. I want to know 
 what it is. The doctrine of the Trinity, he asserts, is 
 false — contraiT to the teachinor of the Word of God. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 279 
 
 Five days has he been laboring, to prove that the doc- 
 trine is contrary to the Word of God, and he closes his 
 argument, turns round and supposes his opponent is just 
 ready, and presses him to give up the ghost at once. My 
 brother must have done a great work, that he has van- 
 quished his opponent. I assume, the only begotten Son 
 of God is the only begotten of the Father, and he states 
 I have two Gods. I quote Luke, to show that the Virgin, 
 overshadowed with the power of the Highest, con- 
 ceived and bare a Son. I showed him that he was the 
 Son of David and of Abraham, and was the God of Abra- 
 ham and of David. 
 
 I propose to lift the flood-gates a little while, and give 
 my brother a passage homeward. You may take this 
 for braggadocia ; but it is my purpose to let the wind out 
 of his sails. I sympathize with you, my brother, on your 
 way homeward, but I must necessarily perform my work. 
 My brother has been anxious to make you believe that 
 I have failed in argument. Not in any sense. The doctrine 
 of the Trinity is tlie doctrine of the Bible, sustained by 
 the whole of the Word of God. I call heaven and this 
 congregation to witness, I have not been sensible of the 
 slightest interference with those truths, since the com- 
 mencement of this argument. We intend to expose our 
 views of Methodism, and let it go open-handed to the 
 world, and preach the true doctrine ; we come outspoken, 
 and hesitate not to invite the world to examine. This 
 Word of God is our Eedeemer God — our Christ whom 
 we worship in spirit and in truth. All I say to my 
 brother, is, that I wish he had served this Master and 
 never done him wrong. I have served Christ for seven- 
 teen years, now, and bowed at the shrine of him who is 
 the only living and true God. I have worshiped him 
 united as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and he has 
 never done me wrong. Then, why should I betray him, 
 and turn my back upon his bleeding cross ? I am sure 
 my brother will not be ofiended at this appeal, will he ? 
 1 challenge my brother to produce one instance, in which 
 
280 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 I have prevaricatGcl ; and whatever may be the result of 
 this discussion, I shall have the proud satisfaction, that 
 I carry within, the consciousness that I have acted as an 
 honorable, honest man, and not tried by any means, to • 
 prejudice the argument, neither in the pulpit nor out of 
 it, and sought no advantage of my opponent. I m-ge 
 you to weigh this, and not let it pass from the mind, by a 
 mere statement, that no answers have been given to the 
 arguments advanced by the brother from Cincinnati. A 
 very large portion of the audience imagine that much 
 has been done. If anything has been done to show the 
 absurdity of the Trinitarian doctrine, with regard to the 
 point at issue, I hope it will be pursued. He says I am 
 afraid of the publication of this book. Neither in public 
 or private have I expressed any objection. I could have 
 desired to present my thoughts in a more connected 
 manner, than I can do in following the tedious course of 
 my friend. When all earthly friends fail, you will find 
 me clinging to the cross of Christ, as my hope of salva- 
 tion ; as my only refuge, and only hope, you will find me 
 looking to Christ — as the only hope for the lost and per- 
 ishing — as the great Captain of Salvation — equal with 
 the Father and the Holy Ghost, in one person. 
 
 I have asserted the essential omnipresence of Jehovah, 
 and the Psalmist says, " If I ascend to heaven, thou art 
 there," &c. So you see, according to the language of 
 the Psalmist, God pervades inmensity of space. But my 
 brother gives him identity somewhere, though he does 
 not pretend to be explicit. It is enough for me to know 
 that God is everywhere — that he is ubiquitous. My 
 brother himself tells of his divine omnipresence ; however 
 he may limit it, or however circumscribe it. I took the 
 liberty, in the discussion, to state that it was a mysteri- 
 ous subject, and he turned round, saying it was so. It 
 might be thought a convenient opportunity to make an 
 impression, that he had made a point in doctrine — some 
 point that his brother had denied. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TlllNITY. 
 
 281 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's !N"ineteenth address : 
 
 My friends — Because I read an argument from a 
 printed pamphlet of my own, on Jer. xxiii, 6, to avoid 
 the trouble of writing it again, my brother calls me, Dr. 
 Summerbell versics l)r. Clarke. But, my friends, Dr. 
 Clarke is on my side on this text, so that it is Drs. Sum- 
 merbell and Clarke versus Dr. Flood. And I am sure 
 that the text will admit of no other construction than 
 that I gave ; for they admit that the Trinity draws its 
 authority from the New Testament, only ; then, why do 
 they go to the Old? On this text, Jer. xxiii, 6, viz: 
 •upi-x mn* iN"ip^ idij/ nn ve-zeh sherao asJier yik- 
 reu yehovah tsidkenu^ translated in the Septuagint, xa(, 
 
 tovto to ovoixa avTfov u xaXsast avtov. xvpio? Ic^issSsx that is, "And 
 
 this is his name which the Lord shall call him, Josedek." 
 
 Clarke says, "In his days Judah shall be saved, and 
 Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby 
 she shall be called, THE LOKD OUK RIGHTEOUS- 
 NESS ! " 
 
 " I doubt not, that some persons will be offended with 
 me for depriving them, by this translation, of a favorite 
 argument for proving the divinity of our Saviour from 
 the Old Testament — but I cannot help it ; I have done it 
 with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am 
 morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly 
 admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have 
 so translated it before me, in an age when there could 
 not possibly, bo any bias or prejudice, either for or against 
 the fore-mentioned doctrine — a doctrine which draws 
 its decisive proofs from the New Testament only. As to 
 those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, 
 they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew 
 critics." — Clarke, Jer. xxiii, 6. 
 
 He re-states my argument, " If Christ be very man, 
 then he can not be mediator between God and men, be- 
 cause he is man ; and if he be ' very God,' then he can 
 not be mediator heticeen God and men, because he is 
 God — ' For a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God 
 24 
 
282 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 is one.'*' Gal. iii. 20. He quotes, ''There is one God 
 and one mediator between God and men. the man Christ 
 Jesus," 1 Tim. ii, 5 ; but Paul did not sav. ** very man," 
 nor did he mean " verv man.'* for he did not believe that 
 Christ was "very man.'' Paul says, '*The fii-st man 
 was of the earth, earthy ; but the second man is the Lord 
 from JieavenP 1 Cor. xv, 47. One thing I wish you 
 to notice, mark, and remember. Eveiy solitary efibrt 
 against the true doctiine faUs, and eveiy text wlien ex- 
 amined, comes out right side up with care.'' for the 
 Christian doctrine : but when I attack his system, he can 
 neither clear it up, nor defend it. He has but a very 
 man '* sacrifice, yet I have quoted Clarke every day. that 
 " God will no more accept of man's blood for sacrifice, 
 than he will swine's blood," but he takes no notice of it. 
 Af v brother says, that some one (?) declai-ed that he would 
 not last one day in this discussion I Xow all my friends 
 told me that he was a very smart man . He now declares 
 that he has not abandoned one p^osition. That is good ! 
 Did you not admit that God has a body, contrary to your 
 creed \ Did you not admit tliat Christ was divided thi-ee 
 days and three nights, contraiT to your creed \ O, yes, 
 brother, don't go back after coming out so far — Come 
 on ! My brother does not yet explain about worshiping 
 all of his God. or all of his Christ. K his God has a 
 human body, then he worships a creature. If his Christ 
 is part, very man. and he worships him all, then he wor- 
 ships a creature. We worship Christ as the Son of God. 
 Heb. i. 6, When he bringeth the first begotten into the 
 world, he saith, let all the angels of God worship him." 
 Did God mean himself { Did he mean himself when he 
 said, Thy throne, O God. is for. ever and ever, a scepter 
 of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom, for thou 
 hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore 
 God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
 gladness above thy fellows?" Angels worship the 
 Lamb that was slain. Eev. v, 12. My brother thinks, 
 dame Nature made mj head wrong. Any thing to 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 283 
 
 get off the question. Let me remind you, my brother, 
 that my head is not the question. 
 
 My brother can not see how it is, that we are not 
 Arians. Arius held entirely different views; views 
 much nearer my brother's — only Arius' created Son of 
 God was much older, and perhaps, greater than my bro- 
 ther's. With Arius, the Son of God was the first being 
 created in eternity ; but with my brother, the Son of God 
 is only about 1800 years old. That is the difference. 
 Neither he nor my brother believes in a Son of God truly 
 begotten of ' the Father before all worlds. I will read 
 from Neander : 
 
 "Arius certainly did not believe that he was preaching 
 a new doctrine, but only bringing out and establishing 
 the old church subordination system; without which, it 
 seemed to him, neither the monarchical principle of the 
 Triad, nor the self-subsistent personality of the Logos 
 could be maintained." — Neander, Yol. ii, p. 361. 
 
 " He (Arius) was intending simply to defend the old 
 doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity^ against 
 Sabellian and Gnostic opinions." — Ibid. p. 365. 
 
 " Eusebius was of opinion, that it was impossible to 
 express the truth after the manner of men, in any other 
 way, than by saying, the existence of the Father precedes 
 the existence and origin of the Son." — Ibid. p. 368. 
 
 My brother challenges any medium between God and 
 the creature ; let me read him the views of the early 
 Christians. Neander, i, p. 605, states, " The prevailing 
 view, in the Western church," to be "one divine essence 
 in the Father and the Son, but at the same time, a sub- 
 ordination in the relation of the Son to the Father." 
 Now unless this divine essence was created, which my 
 brother will not say, the subordinate Son uncreated, was 
 a medium between God and the creature. The whole 
 . church was comprised in what was called the Eastern 
 and Western, and on p. 608, Neander says, " that these 
 Bame views prevailed in the Eastern church till late in the 
 fourth century." Also, the Gothic nations believed that 
 
284 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 the Father was greater than the Son ; but not that the 
 Son was created. — Wadington, p. 117. 
 
 We read in the Bible, that Christ is the mediator be- 
 tween God and men ; that he is God's Son, and that God 
 is his Father. Would my brother call God's only begot- 
 ten Son, begotten before all worlds," as per Nicene 
 creed, a creature ? Dare my brother say that ? But 
 still he denies a medium ; then let me prove it farther by 
 his orthodox fathers, as he would term them. Neander 
 says of the adoption of omoousion : " The majority of the 
 council might perhaps agree in the articles against that 
 part of the Arian creed, which placed the Son of God on 
 a level with creatures, yet the definitions of the oixoovaiov 
 were at variance with the oriental type of doctrine, hence 
 there arose much opposition," &c., yet, he says, Eusebius 
 finally accepted it ; for it, " according to his interpreta- 
 tion, denoted nothing else than the exaltation of the Son 
 of God above all comparison with created beings^ and his 
 perfect likeness to the Father." These saw a medium. 
 
 " There were many others who adopted the Nicene 
 creed in the same sense with Eusebius, interpreting it in 
 accordance with their own doctrinal system ; so that the 
 u^ioovsiov was nothing more than a designation of the 
 ofioiotTjs xo-t ovoiav (likeness in respect to essence). At 
 first, seventeen bishops, who probably belonged to the 
 strictly Arian party, declined to go with the majority ; 
 but as the creed was to be made known under the im- 
 perial authority, and threatened all who would not 
 adopt it with the loss of their places and condemnation 
 as refractory subjects, the greater part of these yielded 
 through fear." — Neander, Yol. ii, p. 376-7. 
 
 Mosheim says : " Dr. Clarke maintained an equality of 
 perfections in the three persons, but a suboTclination of 
 nature in point of existence and derivation." Yol. ii, 315, 
 
 You see my brother fails in every thing. Now, I chal- 
 lenge him to show how he worships all his Christ with- 
 out worshiping a creature ; but he can not do it — mark 
 that. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRIXITT. 
 
 285 
 
 Will my brothep still say, that there is no medium be- 
 tween God and the creature ? We will see. , I can bring 
 him floods of authority on that point if necessary. My 
 argument on the three divine persons, who are all infinite, 
 and possess every attribute of Deity, my brother has not 
 yet answered. If three persons, possessing every possible 
 perfection of God infinitely, are three Gods, then my 
 brother's three persons are three Gods, according to his 
 own argument. If they are not three Gods, three angels, 
 nor three men, what are they ? to what class of beings 
 do they belong ? You see how he dodges all my argu- 
 ments, promising day after day, that he will answer them 
 when the proper time couies. 
 
 He says that Christ is Omnipotent ; yet Christ says, 
 " I can of mine own self do nothing." He says that 
 Christ is Omnipresent; yet Jesus says, " I am glad for 
 your sakes I was not there." Which will you believe ? 
 He says, Christ is Omniscient ; but Christ says, " that 
 he knows not the day nor the hour." Who is correct, 
 Jesus or my brother ? Let my brother answer. Clarke 
 represents the Son as simply man. I will read him on 
 Luke i, 25. 
 
 '•Behold the greatness of the man Christ Jesus: 1st. 
 Because that human nature that should be born of the Vir- 
 gin, was to be united to the divine nature. 2d. In con- 
 sequence of this, that human nature should be called, in 
 a peculiar sense, the So7i of the most High God^ because 
 God would produce it in her womb, without the inter- 
 vention of man. 3d. He shall be the everlasting Head 
 and Sovereign of his church. 4th. His government and 
 kingdom shall be eternal, therefore, also, that holy thing, 
 (or person) sh/ill he called the Son of God. We may 
 plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the 
 appellation, Son of God^ to the divine natiire of Christ. 
 
 '•Here, I trust, I maybe permitted to say, with all due 
 respect for those who difier from me, that the doctrine of 
 the eternal Sonship of Christ, is, in my opinion, anti- 
 Scriptural, and higlily dangerous. This doctrine 1 reject, 
 
286 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 for the following reasons : If Christ be the* Son of God, 
 as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity, 
 prior, consequently superior to him. To say that he was 
 begotten from all eternity is, in my opinion, absurd, and 
 the phrase, Eternal Son, is a positive self-contradiction." 
 
 Such views are still inferior, in honoring the Son, to 
 those of Arius, of which Xeander says : 
 
 ^' A condemnation of these Arian propositions, might 
 doubtless, have been carried through, if on the other 
 side, the party defending the Homoousion, (now called 
 Trinitarian,) had not raised an opposition to the domi- 
 nant church doctrine of the East, and if certain in- 
 dividuals had not come out as mediators between the 
 contending parties. They also endeavored to establish 
 peace, and are called ' authors of peace,' especiall;/ the 
 learned bishop Eusebius, of Caesarea.'' — Nean. ii, 373. 
 
 Still, my brother objects to Mark xiii, 32, "Of that day 
 and hour knoweth no man, no, not the Son." He goes 
 to Clarke ; but Clarke himself can not explain it. It is 
 very much in the way, and must be got rid of Clarke 
 goes to Macknight ; but says that he is " afraid " that 
 Macknight's explanation " only cuts the knot, but does 
 not untie it." My brother says, Clarke does not think it 
 Bible ; and why, pray ? simply because it contradicts his 
 theory. He objects that it is not found in the parallel 
 passages in the other Gospels. A poor reason, truly. 
 More than half of John might be rejected on the same 
 grounds ; but Matt, xxiv, 36, says the Father only " 
 knows ; so that denying one text, will not relieve thern. 
 It is surely a false theory that tears the Bible to pieces in 
 this way. This way of explaining the text, by denying 
 it, is exceedingly awkward. So many passages are con- 
 stantly in his way ; but it is not with me that he has to 
 contend, but with God's holy book. If he could only 
 drag out all these texts, and could get the Trinity in 
 their place, why he could soon prove his creed. Had 
 be made the Bible, he would have put it there ; but 
 those who made the Bible, were not Trinitarians. The 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITT. 
 
 287 
 
 God of heaven did not believe in the Trinity, nor did 
 the prophets or apostles. He has not been able to find 
 one single text that sanctions such a belief. But instead 
 of finding it in texts, texts have to be explained away, 
 and denied, to bring it in. It is a false theory that thus 
 teai-s the l3ible in pieces. Do not believe him, my 
 friends, when he tells you that your salvation depends 
 npon your holding on to such a belief: thousands were 
 saved before such a faith was thought of, and you may 
 be, though you should renounce it. My brother says, that 
 I said, that his system would not save a cricket. I said 
 that if he would take what we believe, from his system, 
 that it would not sake a cricket. Take away the Bible, 
 and leave only his Constitution — take away the true God, 
 and leave only his Trinity — take away the Son of God, 
 and leave only his human nature — take out of it all the 
 Christian's faith, and a cricket would consider itself in 
 danger upon it. Clarke thinks that Jesus must have 
 known the day of the end of the world, for Daniel did. 
 Now, I deny that Daniel did know it. He says that 
 Clarke refers it to the destruction of Jerusalem. How- 
 ever Clarke may interpret it. Matt, xxiv, 36, says " the 
 Father only,'' and consequently, that excludes from that 
 knowledge all other persons. 
 
 My brother has not satisfactorily answered this text, 
 and he is yet groaning under the embarrassment of mak- 
 ing two persons the Father of Christ. He said that the 
 Holy Ghost was as truly a person as the Father, because 
 he begat Christ as truly as the Father did ; but now he 
 tries to shift the difiiculty ofl' on Luke ; but Luke was 
 not a Trinitarian, and will not help him. He tries, in 
 vain, to make Luke a scape-goat to bear the sins of his 
 creed. Let my brother explain how two persons begat 
 Christ. Do not leave it, my brother. If you are crowded 
 for time, it is your own fault. Yon have put ofl* too 
 much for to-day. Again, he says that he will not aban- 
 don his system. Persons are often most confident, just 
 before they turn. The darkest hour is just before day. 
 
288 
 
 DlSCrSSIOX ox THE TRIXITT. 
 
 and there is no better sign that he is troubled with mis- 
 givings, than this constantly declaring, that he v:iU not. 
 He calls heaven and earth to witness that he is not 
 beaten in this debate. It always looks as though a man 
 considered his case bad, when he ofiers to swear to it, 
 before he is asked. He declares that he has been honest; 
 who disputes it ? and that he will stick to his doctrine. 
 If he prefers it, let him do so ; but he will wear it more 
 loosely than ever before, I am certain. It will not enter 
 into the deep consciousness of his soul ; but hang about 
 him as a loose and superfluous garment. You see how 
 he manages ; he lets nearly all my arguments go unan- 
 swered, and goes ofi' into an extasy of exhortation — gives 
 us" a good talk about holding on to his religion, and de- 
 clares he won't give up his creed, nor his Saviour. Who 
 wants him to give up his Saviour ? I do not ! As for 
 his creed, there is Tittle left that he has not already given 
 up. I want him to hold on to his Saviour, and be as 
 happy as he can to the end of his life, and hope that he 
 may hereafter see his Saviour at the right hand of God, 
 in the kingdom of heaven. But he stills throws in a 
 little frolic and a little fun ; and if by this and loud words, 
 and hard sayings, and passing over Jordan, and seeing 
 the pebbles, he can create a little protracted meeting ex- 
 citement, and get your minds diverted from the argu- 
 ment — as the affrighted partridge lures the enemy away 
 from her nest — wliy let him do it. 
 
 He still, as he has done all along, threatens to raise the 
 flood-gates, and give me a water passage homeward ; it 
 has been flood, flood, flood, with him, but still there is 
 no water — like a dry pump, he only sucks wind. There 
 is no danger ; there will be no shower ; there may be 
 thunder, but no lightning ; all of you keep your seats. 
 He has not answered my numerous arguments ; he has not 
 answered his own authority, that there are two other per- 
 sons in the Trinity, beside God, and about Clirist having 
 two persons for his Father; and about Christ being 
 God^ because he knew that his brother Lazarus was 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 289 
 
 dead ! He has not told us what the three persons are ; 
 whether they are three Gods ; three Sons of God ; three 
 angels ; three men, or to what class of intelligences they 
 belong. If the three persons are not three angels, men, 
 nor Sons of God, what are they ? Now, brother, don't 
 evade this question any longer. 
 
 I want him also to answer this argument : He says 
 that his Christ is veiy God and very man ; yet, both the 
 God and man combined, make but one person, and 
 that God abandoned the " very man" on the cross. iSow 
 the argument is this, was God who left, one person ? If 
 my brother denies it, then he falls into Atheism ; but if 
 Christ, composed of both God and man, was only one 
 person, then if God was a person, it follows that when 
 God abandoned the " very man," one person was gone ; 
 and as the two made but one person, then all the person 
 there was there, was gone. So that no person died for 
 our sins, no person was buried, no person rose again 
 from the dead, and our faith is vain — we are yet in our 
 sins. My brother still claims that Jesus is self-existent ; 
 but he says : " I live by the Father." Jesus ever ac- 
 knowledged his dependence upon the Father. At the 
 raising of Lazarus, he said : "I thank thee, O Father, 
 that thou hast heard me." He also directs us, when we 
 pray, to say Our Fatlier." 
 
 When Paul says, " all things are put under Christ," 
 he immediately adds, " it is manifested that he is ex- 
 cepted, which did put all thijigs under himP 1 Cor. 
 XV, 27. And "when all things shall be subdued to 
 Christ, then shall the Son also^ himself he subject to 
 him that put all things under himP 1 Cor. xv, 28. 
 Will almighty God ever be subject to another being ? 
 
 God has an '-^ onlxj hegotien SonP John iii, IS. Was 
 Jesus Christ an only begotten Son? If so, can he be 
 God the Father ? 
 
 There are, in the Xe^o Testament, seventeen passages, 
 "wherein the Father is styled the o*ne, or only God^ and 
 nearly two hundred in which he is styled God abso- 
 rb 
 
290 
 
 DISCUSSION Oy THE TniyiTT. 
 
 lutely ; while there is not one in which the Son is so 
 caUed. 
 
 There are ninety passages in Avhich all prayer and 
 praises are directed to God the Father, and which imply 
 that all things should be directed to his glory and honor; 
 and the manner of address is uniformly through Christ; 
 and out of 1300 i?assages^ wherein the word, God, is 
 mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of 
 a plurality of persons. 
 
 Those passages in which Jesus Christ is declared 
 positively, or by implication, to be suhordinate to the 
 Father, deriving from him his heing, receiving from 
 him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly in 
 suhjection to the authority and v:ill of the Father^ are 
 in number above three hundred. 
 
 In a word, the svpremacy of the Father, over the Son.^ 
 is the simple and indisputable doctrine of the Bihle ; 
 whereas the doctrine of the Son's equality, or identity 
 with the Father, is clothed in mystery, encumbered with 
 difficulties., and dependent.^ at best, on but 2, few pas- 
 sages for sujyport. 
 
 The Trinit}' is unknown in the Bible. A man having 
 the Bible alone would never find a Trinity. If he would, 
 let my brother produce the texts — even one sin^jle text. 
 The word was introduced among Christians by Theophi- 
 lus, bishop of Antioch, in the latter part of the second 
 century, but not so soon applied to the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost. The doctrine was commenced at ^ice in 
 325 — received its finishing touch in 3S1, but was not en- 
 tirely finished till 6S1. Gibbon iv, 422. It was adopted 
 in Spain, in 589, Gib. 345 ; in England, in 596 ; see Mil- 
 ner, i, 519 ; and Bede, lib. 2, ch. 4 & 20 ; in Africa, in 
 534 ; see Gib. iv, 114. Our views are spreading now in 
 every denomination. Many of the most eminent bishops 
 of England hold our views of the Trinity, as witnessed 
 by Mosheim. Since the first of tins century, over two 
 hundred ministers of^the Chui-ch of England have peti- 
 tioned to have the Athanasian ci-eed taken from the 
 
DISCUSSIOlir ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 291 
 
 Prayer-book. Over 300 churches in !N"ew England have 
 renounced the doctrine during the same period. In the 
 work of an Episcopal clergyman One of Three Hun- 
 dred,'') published by the Protestant Epis. S. S. Union, 
 p. 185, the learned author says, " Again I look over the 
 Presbyterian and sectarian world — German, French, 
 Dutch, Scotch, Irish, English, Dane, Saxon, Prussian, 
 American, (fee, how many pastors, and how many flocks 
 do I see, by whom the Majesty of an everlasting Trinity, 
 &c., are now regarded as the exploded eccentricities of 
 the half-emancipated Reformers, (One of Three Hun- 
 dred, p. 184"). And on the same page, he mourns that 
 even where Michael Servetus was burnt by Calvin, " So- 
 cinus exults over Calvin" — Unitarianism over Trinita- 
 rianism, p. 184. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Nineteenth reply : 
 
 For the seventy-seventh time, perhaps, I speak of the 
 miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, in which my 
 brother claims that I say he has two fathers. I hold 
 there are not two Gods — I acknowledge but one — and that 
 the miraculous conception was in the following mauner: 
 " And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 
 Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the High- 
 est shall overshadow thee : therefore, also, that holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
 God." Luke i, 35. I assumed here that Jesus Christ 
 was the only-begotten Son of God. I never once asserted 
 that he had two fathers. This language my opponent 
 has labored to put into my mouth, and crowd down your 
 throats. I now assert that there is no ground for any 
 such statements, and never was. I hope to treat my op- 
 ponent honorably in this debate. He quotes, " The first 
 Adam was made man." I answer him again, that the 
 first man was created and formed of earth, by the hand 
 of God ; was made a man, not a child or infant, but a 
 full-grown man : and the same power that formed him, 
 and made him a living soul of the dust ot* the earth, was 
 
292 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 capable of producing anotlier. I now record again, there 
 is not a single proposition that my brother has ])ronght 
 forward, nor a single text of Scripture, but what has been 
 answered by me ; and yet he tells you of a thousand texts 
 he has produced which I have not noticed ! 
 
 I promise you, right here, that if I expend all my wind, 
 I will speak out, distinctly and plainly, that I may be 
 understood by every sensible man — even if my brother 
 should call you his " dear, sweet friends," as he did the 
 other day ; but I will try to use language which does not 
 sound like a mother petting her child. He says that 
 Christ is not angel and not man — that he is not created. 
 If not a creature, then, of course, he is uncreated ; and 
 if uncreated, eternal ; and if eternal, God. Here is the 
 conclusion drawn fairly from the premises. This is the 
 position I assume : that he is not created, but that all 
 things were made by him, and for him. 
 
 With regard to the reports of my brother, that I have 
 been in great trouble, and very much concerned respect- 
 ing the result of this discussion ; and that he has quoted 
 a thousand passages of Scripture and more, and I would 
 not answer him; if the eye and countenance are any 
 index of the sentiments of the heart, I know what the 
 result of this discussion will be ; for I see some faces 
 that are exceedingly long ; and I noticed, my brother, 
 when he went away, looked as if he had been deserted 
 by his best friends. When argument fails, he resorts to 
 the language of Billingsgate ; and he says, if we take his 
 creed away from ours, we have nothing left — not enough 
 to save a cricket ! The other day he introduced devil- 
 authority; now he introduces cricket-theology; and at 
 another time, partridge- theology ! I regret that he de- 
 scends to use such language as this ; and he complains 
 very much of my play of words. You will remember 
 he gave me credit for four things ; and this language he 
 repeats again, and says I remind him of a dry pump that 
 sucks only wind ; but he sa}S this because 1 have taken 
 the wind out of his sail. The proposition from which my 
 
DISCUSSIOX OX THE TRIXITT. 
 
 293 
 
 brother wanders is this : " Is the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist Protestant 
 Church, especially with regard to the equality of Jesus 
 Christ with the Father in substance, power, glory, and 
 eternity, contrary to the teaching of the Word of God 
 But he goes off to talk about cricket salvation, and the 
 amount of truth that would be necessary to save a cricket, 
 and such kind of stuff I I can not conceive how ideas 
 60 limited in themselves, should occupy his mind, unless 
 he abounds in such ideas ; for " out of the abundance of 
 the heart the mouth speaketh.'' 
 
 He talks about my exhortation, and seems desperately 
 afraid of the impression that will be made by the great 
 fundamental truths upon which the hopes of the world 
 rest ; and he is careful to admonish you that other exhor- 
 tatiops are to come : this is a great trouble to him. He 
 says, that worship is to be paid to God, through Christ. 
 I wish to inquire, if we are to understand by that that he 
 does not worship Christ ? You will remember that angels 
 in heaven worship him : the language was quoted, *• Let 
 all the angels of God worship him.'' Paul does not say 
 that they should worship God through him. The spirit 
 of revelation proves that he is the proper object of wor- 
 ship; that all the angels of God worship him — which 
 they, doubtless, do, as the Creator of the world. My 
 brother told us that Christ was not a creature, and not God. 
 And if he is not a creature, then he is uncreated and 
 eternal, co-equal with the Father in existence, as in other 
 respects ; and yet he declares that we have a little God 
 and a great God. He complains now, that I asserted my 
 determination not to abandon my p^ition ; but, he adds, 
 the darkest hour is just before the morning breaks. I 
 hope, when he goes Irom this place, that he will do me 
 no injustice by asserting that I yield my position ; for I 
 aver that his powers of argument have never made the 
 slightest impression upon me. 
 
 I sincerely desire my brother's conversion to the truth ; 
 and I have no desire that he should continue to drive on 
 
294 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 his godless boat, but that he sliould come under better 
 influences, and have evidence of the great truth that God 
 is one, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, equal in substance, 
 power, glory, and eternity ; that Jesus Cin*ist is very God 
 and very man, one united in three persons, never, never to 
 be separated. I am sorry to discover a disposition to a 
 little fever in my brothers constitution ; but I will bathe 
 him with a little cold water occasionally. 
 
 He quotes Clarke to prove that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity receives its only support from the New Testa- 
 ment — the Old Testament was a shadow of things to 
 come. I mentioned that Dr. Macknight, Benson, and 
 Dr. Coke, all harmonized in their views on this subject ; 
 and these are all against Dr. Summerbell. I ask if I have 
 not, all the time, been compelled to occupy an affirma- 
 tive position ? and now he is desperately concerned about 
 the exhortation that is to close this discussion ; and that 
 will recall, as far as possible, all the arguments I have 
 advanced. If he has advanced arguments that I have 
 not noticed, it has been because they were undiscernible 
 to the naked eye ; not that I have not been able to de- 
 scend into the depths of his mighty argument. 
 
 Judging from the whole production with which he has 
 favored us, I suppose, that since he came into the posses- 
 sion of his vigor and strength, he has been devoting him- 
 self and his attention to this particular subject ; and, 
 though the mountain has greatly labored, the world must 
 judge what it has produced. 
 
 Mk. Summerbell's Twentieth address : 
 
 My brother talks a good deal of my greatness ; my 
 friends, generally, are not so favorably impressed. If I 
 had a few^ such friends as my brother, I should have a 
 great name in the world. I am glad, however, that he 
 thinks well of me. He now says, that he has answered 
 all of my arguments. It is well he told us, for I was not 
 aware of it. Next he says, that he icill answer them ! 
 Will it be here, or somewhere else ? You will see. It 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 295 
 
 is admitted, on the best autliorit}', that the Trinity was 
 not revealed in the Old Testament. Xow is it not an 
 odd thing, that four thousand years should have passed 
 away before the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed ? 
 My brother denounces such authors as I have quoted, 
 i. e.^ Clarke, Barnes, Neander, &c., and says that they 
 agree with me — that they have got into the Trinitarian 
 church, but don't belong there. At this rate he will find 
 the majority against him. And are not the Scriptures 
 equally against him ? He now says, in defiance of Clarke, 
 that the Old Testament is full of texts which prove the 
 equality of the Father and Son. Then why does he not 
 produce them ? And that the sufiering and atonement 
 of Jesus Christ are as plainly set forth as in the Xew. 
 True, but there is no discussion on that. He first said, 
 that the two natures were united in Christ never to be 
 separated ; then he said that they were separated three 
 days and three *nights, and now he says that they were 
 never to be permanently separated. He says that he 
 can not tell which Lord I thank ; that we have a big God 
 and a little one. I might as courteously say, that I can 
 not tell which God he worships. We have no big 
 God and little God. "We have but one God ; we are not 
 Trinitarians. That little God doctrine, sir, is not very 
 reverential to Jesus ; I would rather you would not use 
 it too much, for you will have to settle accounts with 
 Jesus for it. He speaks of the wise men worshi^3ing the 
 babe that was born. But does he believe that that babe 
 was the mighty God ? On Is. ix, 6, '* Unto us a child 
 is born," he tells us that he does not ; " that the child 
 born was not the mighty God." Does he then approve 
 of their worshiping the babe, or not ? He again con- 
 trives a plan to get rid of me. My presence seems to 
 agitate my brother greatly, and he is constantly devising 
 some means to get rid of me. He first threatened to 
 give me a water passage home ; then to fill my sails with 
 wind and speed me along. Then he expressed a great 
 deal of regret at my course ; then talked angrily, but 
 anon gets iigjo a better hmnor again. 
 
296 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 My brother says, that I had the letter of the brother 
 who joined the Christian church yesterday, before I came 
 into the house. Very well I 
 
 Flood. — I ask if my brother saw that letter before he 
 came into this house ? 
 
 SuMMERBELL. — Ycs. What of that ? 
 
 The young man* wishes to speak, and appeals to the 
 Moderators. 
 
 Moderators. — As his motives are impeached, he has 
 a right to explain. 
 
 Flood. — I object. I appeal to the rules of the dis- 
 cussion. (They are read, and prohibit him.) 
 
 Moderators. — It is decided that the young man may 
 explain, after the discussion of the day has closed. 
 
 Summing lip. — 1. My brother thinks that I have mis- 
 represented him, in regard to Christ having two Fathers. 
 I have not. He told us that the Father was the first, and 
 the Holy Ghost the third person in the Trinity. He then 
 went to'the Scriptures, to prove that the Holy Ghost (the 
 third person) begat Christ ; then turned to another text, 
 to show that the Father (the first person in the Trinity) 
 begat him, and thought that from this the Holy Ghost 
 must be a person as truly as the Father, for he begat 
 Christ as truly as the Father. According to that, two 
 persons begat Christ, and two persons are the Father of 
 him ! My brother could not explain it, and he never 
 will, for*it is a part of a whole system of error. 
 
 2. My friend has been unable, in the five days' dis- 
 cussion, to produce one single text which proves the 
 personality of the Holy Ghost, as a distinct person from 
 the Father. But he has rather admitted that it is not a 
 person, by comparing it to a pendulum swinging beneath 
 God's throne, vibrating through heaven, earth, and hell. 
 
 3. Neither has he produced one text which proves that 
 the Holy Ghost is God, distinct from the Father. 
 
 *The young man, Mr. Allison, professed that he entertained the 
 best of feelings toward his Metliodist brethren, and that he simply 
 left them on account of his convictions of Truth, <i:c. 
 
 % 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 29T 
 
 4. I have proved to him, that according to Trinitarian- 
 ism, there would be at least six spirits in the Godhead, 
 and have vainly demanded of him, to show why or 
 wherein, God the Father was not as much a spirit as the 
 Holy Ghost, according to his theory. 
 
 5. In answer to liis argument on the text, "The grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you," I referred him to 
 Rev. i, 4, where the grace of the seven spirits is invoked. 
 His reply was, that here John invoked the grace of seven 
 angels, &c., thus confounding his own logic. 
 
 6. I answered his argument on "baptizing in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," by showing that 
 thus also the Holy Ghost and fire were associated in bap- 
 tism ; God with the Lamb in worship ; and the Lamb 
 with Moses in the song of Moses and the Lamb ; and 
 David with God in worship; 2 Cln-on. xxix, 20; which 
 would make them all Gods, according to his mode of 
 reasoning. 
 
 7. He has not defended the hard language they use 
 concerning Christ, when hard pressed. 
 
 8. He has not attempted to answer my argument on 
 Elohim, except by quoting ex parte authors, that it 
 should be translated " Gods;" thus teaching three Gods, 
 contrary to his creed. 
 
 9. He has not answered my argument, showing the 
 contradictions among Trinitarians and how they anathe- 
 matize each other, being altogether unsettled about what 
 the true doctrine is. 
 
 10. He has not answered my argument, proving that 
 his system in reality inculcates the idea of three Gods, 
 into which error Trinitarians always run when hard 
 pressed. 
 
 11. I proved that his own position, on the Divine 
 attributes, if true, annihilated the Father; to which he 
 has not responded. 
 
 12. He has never told us yet, whether he will worship 
 all of his Christ — "very God and very man" — the 
 Divine, and what he calls the human nature or "crea- 
 
298 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 ture," which is united to Christ in one person, and 
 which, with the three persons of the Trinity, now dwells 
 in heaven. 
 
 13. He has not told us, whether he will worship all of 
 his God, or whether he rejects "God's body,'- as he calls 
 it, from his worship. 
 
 14:. I proved to him, that all the "fathers" of the 
 church were against him, and he has not been able to 
 find the Trinity in one of them. 
 
 15. I proved to him, that all the earliest Christian 
 kings, emperors, historians, and nations, were opposed to 
 the Trinity, to which he has not made a solitary reply. 
 
 16. I sliowed him that the word Trinity wasjirst intro- 
 duced into the church by Theopliilus, of Antioch, after 
 the middle of the second century, but not applied to the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, till a much later period. 
 
 17. I have proved to him, that the Trinity was not 
 finished till A. D. 651. 
 
 IS. My friend has given up the word TRIXITY ! 
 which stands at the HEAD of his Articles of Religion. 
 
 19. He admits that the second person in the Trinity 
 is not the Eternal Son of God, contrary to all orthodox 
 faith. 
 
 20. He concedes that God now has a body, contrary 
 to Art. I, of his creed, though he says that he had no 
 body for four thousand years. 
 
 21. He admits that the human and Divine natures in 
 Christ were separated three days and three nights, con- 
 trary to his creed. Art. H. 
 
 22. But still my friend, this morning, calls heaven to 
 witness that he has given nothing up ! 
 
 23. He challenged me to explain how Christ could be 
 neither the supreme God nor a creature. In reply, I 
 showed him that he was the only begotten of the Father, 
 and quoted Neander and Mosheim, showing that such 
 was the opinion of the fathers, and the most learned men 
 of the Christian church. 
 
 24. My brother has failed to find the Trinity in the 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TEIXITT. 
 
 299 
 
 Bible. In five clays' disjnssion, he has failed to produce 
 one single text to show that we should reverence the 
 Trinity, or worship the Trinity, or in any way make use 
 of the word Trinity. 
 
 25. He has lailed to produce one text which says there 
 are three persons in the Godhead : or one text, which 
 calls Christ '* very man,'' or says that he is equal with the 
 Father, in substance, power, gloiy, and eternity ; or that 
 the Holy Ghost is a person. All these positions my 
 brother has been unable to sustain, but puts off answer- 
 ing my remarks in reference to them, till some future 
 time. And now. here we are, at the last day and hour 
 of the debate. He has put them off, from time to time, 
 thinking that they would pass from the mind and be 
 forgotten. 
 
 26. In quoting texts, he has found himself unable to 
 sustain his doctrine ; and has introduced words which 
 were not found in the Scriptures, and relied on texts 
 which his own authors give up as not proving the doc- 
 trine. 
 
 27. He has quoted the Discipline, where he should 
 have quoted the Bible, to prove his doctrine. 
 
 28. Endeavoring to divert your minds from the main 
 issue in the question, he has gone off into exhortation, 
 instead of meeting the arguments ; and endeavored by 
 slaps, thumps, and stamps on the pulpit, to create such 
 a noise as to draw off the attention, just when he should 
 have been arguing the point. 
 
 29. It plainly appears that he himself feels that he has 
 not proved his docti'ine, by his so often exhorting his 
 people not to give it up. As much as to say. Although 
 I have not been able to prove it, yet I want you to tak» 
 my word that you can not be saved without it. 
 
 30. I showed him that Trinitarianism, according to 
 their BEST theory, is only EQUxlL to the Irnnest form of 
 Socinian TJrdtananWffi ; each system iiaving one God, 
 and no more ; and each having one ** very man sacri- 
 fice," and no more. 
 
800 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TKIXITY. 
 
 31. I proved that Trinitarianism. according to its worst 
 view, divides the divine essence, and teaches three Gods ; 
 mv brother hiiuseU" contending that the Hebrew word, 
 Flohinu God, should be translated GODS. 
 
 32. He has not attempted an answer to my arguments 
 on the infinite attributes, that they can not be bounded, 
 measured, or stated as a given quantity. 
 
 33. He has not answered my argument from John xi, 
 15. where Jesus says, '* I am glatl for your sakes that I 
 was not there." 
 
 34. He has failed to answer my arguments on the 
 thousands of personal pronouns in the singular number, 
 applied to the Divine nature — each one of which is an 
 incontrovertible argument for the unity of God. 
 
 35. He says that the three persons. Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, all now dwell in Christ ; thus making the 
 three persons all dwell in him — another person, instead 
 of making him one of the three persons. 
 
 36. I showed that by what they call the Godhead, they 
 mean simply the Divine nature, which is common to dif- 
 ferent persons, or in which different persons exist, the 
 same as in one human nature all mankind exist; and 
 that their unity of God is no more a unity of God, than 
 the unity of the human family, in one humanity, is a 
 unity of man ; so that they, in reality, no more believe 
 in simply one God, than in one man. And I proved to 
 him that the Hindoos, with a n:iillion of gods, claim to, 
 and really do, believe in the unity of God, in the same 
 manner that he does, and may be excused pom the charge 
 
 ^ of believing in more than one God, as well as he. 
 
 37. I proved from Dr. Clarke, that the Trinitj' was 
 found among the Hindoo and Chinese idolaters, and 
 worshiped there long before it was known in the Chris- 
 tian church. (See John i, and Jer. xxiii, 6.) 
 
 3S. I demonstrated to him, that if Christ, both God 
 and man, embraced but one person ; that then, when God 
 left the man, according to his creed there was no person 
 remaining on the cross, since there was only one person, 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 801 
 
 and that person (God) had left ; so that no person died 
 for us. 
 
 39. I presented him with over thirty plain discrepan- 
 cies in his Articles of Religion — and between them and 
 their expositors — to which he has not deigned to reply. 
 He has these yet to answer, or to let it be for ever known 
 that he can not answer them. 
 
 40. I showed him over thirty particulars in which they 
 make the Son inferior to the Father — none of which he 
 has answered. 
 
 41. Where he has attempted replies to my texts, he 
 has, in some places, doubted their truth, and in others, 
 their genuineness ; but in no case has he found any of 
 the peculiarities of his creed in the Word of God. 
 
 42. He has complained that he knew not that I would 
 certainly be here; yet he himself set the time, and I 
 received his letter informing me, the Saturday before 
 coming here, on Monday — too late to reply. 
 
 I have a few moments left, and not choosing to fill up 
 my time with exhortation, I will present you with a 
 number of texts on the unity of God. Whatever men 
 may think, God is One, my friends ; and He will ever 
 remain — eternally One. 
 
 Ex. XX, 3, First commandment, "Thou shalt have no 
 other Gods before me." Not us, as though there were 
 three persons. 
 
 Deut. vi, 4, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE 
 Lord." Not Trinity. 
 
 Job xxxi, 15, " Did not ONE fashion us ?" Not three. 
 
 Zech. xiv, 9, "There shall be ONE Lord, and his 
 name One." Not three. 
 
 Malachi ii, 10, " Have we not all ONE Father ?" No- 
 thing is said of three. 
 
 Malachi ii, 10, " Hath not One God created us V 
 
 Matt, xxiii, 9, " ONE is your Father." Not three. 
 
 Matt, xix, 17, "None is good but ONE, that is 
 God." Not three. 
 
 Mark xii, 29, " The first of all the commandments is, 
 
802 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRINITY. 
 
 Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord." Not 
 Trinity. 
 
 Mark xii, 32, " There is ONE God, and there is none 
 other but he." 
 
 John viii, 41, " We have ONE Father, even God." 
 
 Eom. iii, 20, "ONE God shall justify." 
 
 1 Cor. viii, 4, "There is none other God but ONE." 
 Not two others. 
 
 1 Cor. viii, 6, "To us there is but ONE God the Fa- 
 ther." Not two others. 
 
 Gal. iii, 20, "God is ONE." Not God is triune. 
 
 Eph. iv, 4-6, " ONE Lord, ONE God and Father of 
 all, who is above all." Not equal simplv. 
 
 1 Tim. ii, 5, " There is ONE God and ONE Mediator." 
 
 James ii, 19, "Thou believest in ONE God: thou 
 doest w^ell," &c. 
 
 Isaiah xxx, 29, " God is called the mi2;hty ONE." 
 
 Isa. Ivii, 15, "The High and Lofty OISIE." 
 
 Isa. xxxvii, 23, " The Holy ONE." Not Holy three. 
 
 These are only sample texts — there are scores like 
 them; but none which, like the creeds and modern the- 
 ology, say God is three. Could our brother thus pro- 
 duce texts which read that God is three, surely he would 
 do it. But he can not ; his doctrine is not in the Bible. 
 
 I hope that my brother w^ill take these texts into serious 
 consideration, and remember that it is not a light matter 
 to multiply persons in the Godhead. He can not find 
 one place in all the Bible where it is said, that there is 
 more than one person in the Godhead. I hope to see 
 the day wdien not only he, but all my friends here, will 
 agree with, me on this point. 
 
 A word : debate is not my sphere. I undertook this 
 work rather as a cross than because I desired it. But I 
 must defend my blessed Saviour ; and to do this I must 
 go wherever I am called : not that I wish to intimate that 
 my brother does not love him, too. I desire to advance 
 the truth concerning my Saviour. How glorious it is to 
 know that there are many scores in this house that love 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRIiaTY. 
 
 803 
 
 my Saviour ! May you all be partners in the joys of 
 His love. May your lives be conformed to his life. May 
 you strive in all your ways to be like him — to be con- 
 formed to his image. If you will be like him, you must 
 have his Spirit — you must act like him — feel like him — 
 think like him, and speak like him. They know Christ 
 best, and honor him most, who feel most of him in their 
 hearts. Doubtless, God will pardon any small eiTor of 
 opinion, if the root of the matter be in us. We would 
 act thus with an erring child ; and God is infinitely better 
 than we are. And now, in closing this discussion, let 
 me say that I part with my brother in all good feeling. 
 Although some things may have been said which sounded 
 hard, yet I am sure that I hold no hard feelings. I hope 
 that we may all live as Christians, die as Christians, and 
 appear in the Resurrection as Christians — on the fair 
 banks of everlasting deliverance. And bless God ! when 
 we see him as he is, then we will praise him as we 
 ought. I thank you, gentlemen Moderators, for your 
 faithful labors. I thank the audience for their patient 
 attention. My brother will join with me in extending 
 to all, our thanks. I thank my opponent lor afibrding 
 me this opportunity of advancing the truths of the Chris- 
 tian church. 
 
 I close the question by expressing my regard for both 
 my brother and his people. I have respect and love for 
 them — some near and dear to me were once attached to 
 his creed, but have since joined the Christian church. I 
 regard my Saviour as the Son of God ; and when we 
 have passed from the scenes of time to those of eternity, 
 I hope, we shall meet many from this discussion, who 
 have here learned to regard him the same, and who will 
 join in his praises for ever. May God guide us, by hi-s 
 Holy Spirit, is the prayer of your brother. May we all 
 • be humble — not lofty, proud, bigoted and cruel, but gen- 
 _ tie, courteous, and inviting; that we may win souls to 
 Christ, and that we may enjoy salvation and life everlast- 
 ing in him ! Amen. 
 
804 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ox THE TEINITY. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Twentieth reply : 
 
 This is rather an interesting period in this discnssion, 
 however ultra some of it may have been. I heartily 
 reciprocate all the personal teelings expressed by my 
 brother, and in doing so, I speak the sentiments of my 
 heart. At the same time, I would not have it under- 
 stood, by that remark, that my confidence, in the slight- 
 est degree, in anything that pertains to the great truths 
 involved in this question, has suffered the least, by any 
 part of the investigation, from the beginning to the 
 present hour ; but I will not say anything, by which my 
 brother may not feel himself flattered in my closing re- 
 marks. He says his friend flattered him — and I hope he 
 feels himself flattered. Amid the trials of life, when the 
 spirit is oppressed, and when we are in trying circum- 
 stances, it is agreeable to our feelings to meet with the 
 word of cheering from those whom we respect, and my 
 brother has expressed himself as entertaining a respect 
 for his opponent. I am happy to hear him say that he 
 feels himself flattered. He proceeds to inquire, "Did 
 my friend answer the argument, that three persons in the 
 Trinity, make three Gods ?" Well, 1 think, about as 
 Dearly as I can recollect, that every time that my brother 
 has alluded to that subject, I have answered him — a 
 sufficient number of times, I think, for it to be remem- 
 bered. 
 
 I say there are three persons in the Godhead, and I 
 have not time again to go over the texts to prove the 
 personality of the Father, Son. and Holy Ghost — they 
 will have a place in the memory of many of those as- 
 sembled here. 
 
 With regard to baptizing in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, F assume that, as there are three 
 persons in the Godhead, an individual committing him- 
 self to the sacred ordinance, is under equal obligation to 
 all ; and this accords with the argument, that we should 
 honor the Son, even as we honor the Father ; we are 
 tinder obligation to do so. I insist, at all times, whilst I 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 305 
 
 maintain a plurality of persons in the Godhead, I also 
 maintain a oneness of being in God, as has been so fre- 
 quently stated. Tiiis position was supported by some of 
 the very texts quoted by my brother, in his endeavors to 
 refute it ; every passage that asserts the unity of God, is 
 a passage for me. I have said that no man has a more 
 Jiving confidence in the oneness of Jehovah, than I have ; 
 that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in sub- 
 stance, power, glory and eternity — that they are one God. 
 I have assumed that the union of the humanity and the 
 divinity, in the second person of the Trinity, is a myste- 
 rious and wonderful union ; and I have never attempted to 
 explain its mystery, nor would I undertake to explain the 
 mystery of that union that subsists between the soul and 
 body of every living man. I have not the sliglitest know- 
 ledge how it is, that soul and body are united in one per- 
 son, and yet be but one man ; the one, as I have shown, 
 connected with the world of matter ; the other with the 
 world of spirit, mysteriously united in one person, — the 
 one earthly and physical, the other spiritual and intellec- 
 tual. 1 have not attempted to explain this, for the apostle 
 says : "And without controversy, great is the mystery of 
 godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached imto the Gentiles, be- 
 lieved on in the world, and received up into glory." 
 1 Tim. iii, 16. 
 
 Mk. Summerbell. — My brother is bringing in new 
 matter in his closing speech, contrary to the rules of 
 the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I think not. I think I brought this text 
 forward before. 
 
 Moderators. — jSTo. 
 
 Mr. SuiiMERBELL. — He may go on, by permitting one 
 word of explanation. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — Very well. 
 
 Mr. Scmmerbell. — " God manifest in the flesh." The 
 Christian doctrine is, that God was manifest in Christ — 
 and that thus, God was manifest in the flesh. 
 26 
 
306 
 
 DISCUSSIO:^ ON THE TlRmTY. 
 
 Kow, if I understand the language of tlie apostle here, 
 it does not change materially the sentiment of the text, 
 *'God was manifested in Jesus Christ,'' in Jesus Christ 
 God made the manifestation of his nature to the world, 
 as I have already shown in a foi-mer argument from the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 My brother says he has been threatened with the flood. 
 I have not the slightest inclination to step out of the 
 way, to play off humor on him. I resort to language of 
 this kind only for fear that truth should lose ground, 
 where it ought to have advanced. All that I wish to 
 advance, is a flood of argument, drawn from the Bible 
 of God. First, with regard to the Trinity, I assume that 
 the three personalities we described in the Godhead, 
 Father. Son. and Holy Ghost, were supported by numer- 
 ous proof-texts, which were introduced in a former ar- 
 gument. The second branch of the proposition relates to 
 the equality of the Father, and the Son. I quoted from 
 Philippians, to prove that the Father and Son are equal : 
 " He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.*' 
 Phil, ii, 6. My brother seems to think that the difl'er- 
 ence between us is not so very great. Kow I have no 
 quarrel with my brother on this subject ; he may come 
 as near as he feels disposed, to the position I occupy ; 
 but I will not insist on his coming to it wholly, until his 
 judgment and conscience may assent. But I trust his 
 creed may prove no barrier to his final admission of the 
 truth ; at the same time, I cannot lose sight, nor fail to 
 expose, what I regard to be important erroi*s in the 
 leading doctrines of my opponent. My brother reverts to 
 the fact, that the apostle's commission was not of man. 
 I admitted that he did not receive it from men, but from 
 Jesus Christ ; that it was not a mere human authority 
 that he received ; his credentials were signed and sealed 
 in heaven ; for the Saviour of the world appeared v^ hen 
 he was on a persecuting tour, saying : " Saul. Saul, why 
 persecutest thou me ? And he said, Who art thou, Lord ? 
 And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest ; 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 307 
 
 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, 
 trembling, and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou 
 have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, 
 and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou 
 shalt do." Acts ix, 4-6. Thus I have shown that where 
 the Saviour was not honored, the Father was not hon- 
 ored. So far, then, as the commission of Paul was con- 
 cerned, it was received from Jesus Christ. 
 
 My opponent has insisted that if the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, are three persons, they mitSt, therefore, be 
 three beings. I must direct your attention to this subject. 
 I admit that the figure of water was not originally my 
 own ; it was- a feeble representation, and fell infinitely 
 short of presenting the idea I designed to represent. He 
 states that my so-called argument, was not a sufficient 
 arrs\ver ; he insisted that I have not proved the person- 
 ality of the Holy Ghost. I thought I did, as also his 
 divine attributes. Though, perhaps, my brother may 
 not see fully the force of my argument, I think others 
 have seen and felt it clearly. I assumed, and proved by 
 texts, that personality belonged to Jesus Christ, and 
 that he was the Word which was in the beginning — the 
 Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ; that his personality was 
 there, and that humanity was nothing at all, so far as the 
 personality was concerned ; and that it did not increase 
 the number of persons ; that the humanity was associated 
 with it in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence, Jesus 
 Christ possessed all the infinite perfections of Jehovah — • 
 all power in heaven and earth. ♦ 
 
 My brother has stated that though he possessed all 
 power in heaven and earth, (and on which I founded an 
 argument) that all power in heaven and earth might be 
 given, and yet there was power reserved. If this be 
 true, God is deprived of that power that is essential to 
 exert a supreme authority over heaven and earth ; while 
 this power is delegated, it limits Jehovah in conception; 
 dethrones him in heaven, and denies him power on earth. 
 If this be true, I have assumed, that the moment you 
 
308 
 
 DISCUSSION OX THE TRIXITY. 
 
 limit the perfections of Jehovah, you annihilate God, and 
 leave the universe an orphan. My brother says, I have 
 still been putting oft* his arguments. I have kept pace 
 with him, except in one or two arguments that were 
 irrelevant; I have not put off a single argument that I 
 regarded as proper to be noticed, or that had any possible 
 bearing upon the subject — and indeed many others I have 
 noticed that had no bearing w4iatever. 
 
 He thanks his friend for this chance of discussion : my 
 brother is welcome, I do not charge him one cent for all 
 the advantages he may receive ; and I assure you, I 
 thank my brother for the opportunity ; and I may hope, 
 that the good results of this debate, both for this commu- 
 nity and elsewhere, may survive me ; and w'hen" perhaps, 
 in some far distant clime 1 may bend my steps — for 
 I have had such thoughts, such might be my purpose, 
 that I might not always peregrinate in this region, the 
 place of my nativity, and if it should be that I drop my 
 worn-out frame, and lay it down in some Western prairie 
 — wherever may be my final resting-i)lace, I shall ever 
 look back upon the scenes and events of this discussion 
 without any feelings of regret. I feel a consciousness in 
 the power of divine truth, and I thank my brother for 
 the opportunity^ of investigating these points of dift'erence, 
 that we may see how nearly we agree, rather than how 
 widely we difier. I believe it is the duty of the religious 
 world, to see how nearly they are united in the great 
 fundamental principles of divine truth, instead of ascer- 
 taining how far they are apart. Every man of enlarged 
 and enlightened mind, and every soul imbued with the 
 spirit of tohrist, will not certainly fail to respond a hearty 
 amen, to the expressions of my brother upon this point. 
 He says, he entertains none but feelings of respect for 
 me and my people. I have known many among his 
 brethren, whom I regarded with high esteem, though I 
 believed them in error upon some points ; yet I doubt 
 not, that in heaven's high and holy place, they will 
 mingle their songs of rejoicing with us for ever and ever. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 309 
 
 I remark, in conchisioii, with respect to my brother's 
 attempting to prove that God the Father was the Creator, 
 we find that Christ, also, is represented as being the 
 Creator; hence, God is Christ, and Christ is God. 
 
 I have to say to my respected auditors, that I have no- 
 thing but feelings of good-will, and sentiments of respect 
 for you, which I shall retain when I shall be separated 
 from you — whether, in God's Providence, I am permitted 
 to mingle with you again or not. And I most heartily 
 thank you, my friends, that when it was thought best 
 to have an investigation of these important truths, that 
 you did me the honor, to which I had not aspired, to 
 call upon me to conduct this discussion ; and which 
 many of my brethren might have conducted with greater 
 ability. I thank my friends for the honor they have done 
 me, and for the noble generosity they have manifested — 
 and I might advert to the very kind and courteous man- 
 ner in which I have been treated by my brother's friends. 
 I have been to their tables since I have been here, and I 
 intend to have the privilege of again breaking bread with 
 some of them before I leave. But I still say, that my 
 hope of salvation is in the existence of the three persons 
 in the Trinity, possessing alike the attributes of the God- 
 head, equal in substance, power, glory and eternity. 
 And it is upon this ground that I trust my hopes of sal- 
 vation in the merits of Jesus Christ. I thank God the 
 Father; I thank God the Son; and I thank God the Holy 
 Ghost, and call heaven to witness that my trust of salva- 
 tion is in the boundless merit of Christ crucified ; and I 
 shall hope, if my brother should pass before me from 
 this world of strife and sorrow, to meet him, and greet 
 him as an heir of immortality, sharing in the glory that 
 is reserved for the foithful. I thank my God there is a 
 crown of glory which shall be given to the faitliful — and 
 not to me only, but to all those who love his appearing. 
 I urge this upon you as Christians, daily, honestly, weigh 
 these things with yourselves and with God — and I speak 
 thus to all, without regard to party. Let your Bible be 
 
310 
 
 DISCUSSION ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 your rule of faith and practice — take it to your chamber, 
 and upon your knees before God, seek for truth as for 
 hidden treasure, and the light of his spirit will be poured 
 upon an inquiring mind — the truth, as it is in Jesus, will 
 shine upon you in all its glory. You that love God and 
 are striving for heaven, follow on in your onward course; 
 whatever you do, be sure that your views are right, but 
 do not be moved by every wind of doctrine — do not let go 
 your hold upon the hope of Jesus Christ. In reference 
 to my manner, I may say, that however tart it may have 
 seemed, it was only in view of the strength of what I 
 regarded as truth ; and hence, in all kindness to my bro- 
 ther. In conclusion, it is my purpose to adhere to these 
 gospel truths, to the latest hour of my life ; and what- 
 ever may be of truth in this blessed doctrine that we do 
 not now see, we shall know it all when we enter into the 
 knowledge of angels. 
 
 I thank you, gentlemen Moderators, for your kindness, 
 and for the undoubted honesty, manliness, and nobleness, 
 with \Yiiich you have presided over our debate. And I 
 would also convey my thanks to those gentlemen, for 
 their fiaithful attention in recording our words. This is 
 all I wish to say to you. I pray God's blessing upon you 
 all, and may it continue to rest upon you till the end of 
 life ; and may we enter heaven at last, and then may we 
 shout to Him who hath washed us ! Then shall we tri- 
 umph for evermore in the presence chamber of the Al- 
 mighty, and share the fullness of his redeeming mercy ! 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 ON 
 
 .. COJ^STITUTIOTsS AJsD DISCIPm^ES. 
 
 PROPOSITION POR LISCrSSIOK. 
 
 '* Is the Christian Church, at all times subsequent to the Apos- 
 tolic Age, prohibited from making Constitutions and Disciplines 
 for her government ? " 
 
 N. SuMiiERBELL affirms ; Rey. J. M. Flood denies. 
 
 Me Su:iDiERBELL's Twenty-first address : 
 
 My first position on this question is, that if it is right 
 to make Constitutions and Disciplines for the government 
 of the Church, that it is right to make tlie best we can, 
 which is all that can be required of us ; and that when 
 we have thus done, the majority are to decide, in case of 
 disagreement ; for where anything is left to a plurality 
 of persons, the majority must decide what is right, and 
 the majority must rule. If this be right, and 1 do not 
 see how any man can question it, then it follows of 
 necessity that it is wrong to resist ; for two opposites can 
 not be right. If, then, it is right to make a Constitution, 
 it is right for the majority to decide upon it, and it is 
 right to execute it ; and if it be right to enforce it, then 
 it is sin to resist it. The conchision then is, that as my 
 brother admits all this, he is bound to submit to the 
 majority. The Catholics are in the majority, and believ- 
 ing my brother's principles, have legislated for the 
 Church ; and it is right for them to enforce their laws, 
 and wrong in my brother to resist them. Their laws 
 have the precedence of all human legislation in the 
 Church, and my brother is bound to submit to them, if 
 his premises be true. 
 
 The objection that their laws are not according to the 
 Bible, and that ice have the right of private judgment, 
 will not avail, as the minority must always submit to the 
 
 311 
 
312 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 majority in all popular legislation ; and they think that 
 their laws are according to the Bible. Private judgment 
 and law can not be expected to agree. Now, we object 
 to the right to legislate for God's people, and so reject 
 the whole system. 
 
 1. We think that the Bible contains the only truth 
 which God has commanded us to believe: 
 
 2. And the only law which He has commanded us to 
 obey ; and we hear not the voice of strangers. 
 
 The Bible assures us, that to fear God and keep his 
 commandments is the whole duty of man, and promises 
 salvation only to those who believe his truth and obey his 
 law. Those who deny that God designed this law of 
 love to guide our conduct, and this truth of heaven to 
 guide our faith, are certainly under obligations to tell us 
 what they were designed for ! But if this is admitted by 
 them, then to deny its perfection, is to challenge God's wis- 
 dom, and to reject his revelation ; while to doubt its suffi- 
 ciency, is to impeach his goodness, and to deny his "Word. 
 
 The Bible assures us, that, Ps. xix, 7, " The law of 
 the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ;" and that 
 
 2 Tim. iii, 16, The Scriptures make the man of God 
 jperfect. 
 
 Even the " Discipline'''^ declares that " The Word of 
 God is the highest authority, and only ultimate appeal in 
 the church," p. 80. 
 
 Jesus, Jdmsclf^ assumed not to act independent of God. 
 
 John xiv, 31, "As the Father gave me a command- 
 ment, even so I do but they legislate without a com- 
 mandment. 
 
 But Jesus Said, Matt, xv, 13, " Every plant which my 
 heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." 
 
 Luke ii, 49, "I must be Sihowtmy Father'' s business." 
 
 John viii, 3, "I do nothing of myself, but as the 
 Father hath taught me so I speak." 
 
 John X, 37, "If I do not the works of my Father, 
 believe me not." But they ordain novel faiths not com- 
 manded by God, and demand that we believe them ; yea, 
 
CONSTITUTIOXS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 818 
 
 they claim the right to legislate over God's kingdom, 
 even to the making of Constitutions for its government. 
 The Constitution of the Methodist Protestant Church, is a 
 little book of no great pretensions, if we may judge from 
 its size. Let us examine it, and see what it really is. 
 
 1. It deprives colored people of their rights. 
 
 I think that the Word of God makes no distinction 
 between the white and colored man. I wish my brother 
 to pay particular attention to this, for he who would 
 deprive a colored man of his rights jSTorth, would enslave 
 him in the South. 
 
 2. It says that the Bible contains all things necessary 
 to salvation, and that whatever is not there, is not re- 
 quired to be believed. So that my brother has failed on 
 the question at the very outset — his own Creed deciding 
 against him. 
 
 3. It gives the church a wrong name. It calls it the 
 Methodist Protestant Church ; a name which God never 
 gave it, nor Christ, nor the apostles, and it is a strange 
 thing for children to name themselves. 
 
 4. It deprives God's children of full membership, 
 unless they can admit all of it to be correct ; thus requir- 
 ing more than God requires. P. 16. 
 
 .5. The candidate for the ministry must submit to this 
 book, as well as the Bible, before he can be received into 
 the ministry. P. M. 
 
 6. It deprives genuine converts from full communion, 
 until they have i)een in the church six months. The 
 whole three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost, 
 would have been deprived of full fellowship in the 
 Church, by this Constitution. 
 
 7. It gives the children of the members of their own 
 Church, advantages which it withholds from the children 
 of the members of other churches, who are equally good. 
 
 8. It enjoins infant sprinkling^ which is nowhere 
 taught in the Word of God, either by precept or example. 
 
 9. It encourages three modes of baptism, which all 
 know must be wrong ; for Jesus, our example, was bap- 
 
 27 
 
814 
 
 DISCUSSION OX 
 
 tized but once^ aud of course, in but one icay^ and that 
 way alone can be right. 
 
 10. It orders the naming of children at their baptism; 
 a Koman Catholic custom, quite out of place, as the child 
 has been named long betbre. 
 
 11. It says that we are justified by faith only ; con- 
 trary to the Bible, which says, that " by works a man is 
 justified, and not by faith onhjp James ii, 24. So that, 
 small as it is, its errors are many ; and how could it be 
 otherwise ? The very desire for a Discipline shows a 
 dissatisfaction with the Bible, and of course, a desire for 
 something which is not in the Bible ; for no change 
 "would be required, if no alteration was desired. 
 
 I want my bi\>ther to give a particular answer to each 
 of these eleven objections, and to tell us plainly whether 
 he approves or disapproves of them. Jesus says, "that 
 the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over thera, 
 and they that are great exercise authority upon them, 
 but it shall not be so among us." Matt, xx, 25. And 
 against all these attempts to lord it over God's heritage, 
 and make human Constitutions, I urge the all-sufiiciency 
 of the Word of God. for the following reasons : 
 
 1st. It teaches us how to fear God and keep his com- 
 mandments ; which is the whole dut}^ of man. — Ecc. xii, 
 13. See also Psalm cxix. 
 
 2d. They are to be studied by the people. " Search 
 the Scriptures." — John v, 19. 
 
 3d. It is not to be interpreted privately, as the pro- 
 perty of a privileged class, but for the public. " He that 
 hath ears to hear let him hear, for no prophecy of Scrip- 
 ture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy came 
 not in old time by the will of man : but Holy men of 
 God, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." — 
 2 Pet. i, 20. 
 
 4th. It can be understood b}'' children. " From a 
 child thou hast known the Scriptures, which are able to 
 make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is 
 in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. iii, 15. See also, fourth chap 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 315 
 
 5th. It is a perfect system of doctrine and discipline. 
 "All Scripture given by inspiration of God. is protitable 
 for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
 righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect^ 
 thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'' — 2 Tim. iii, 
 16, 17. 
 
 6lh. The human Disciplines are not so. "In vain do 
 ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men." — Mark vii, 7, 13. 
 
 7th. Traditions lead to transgression. "Why do ye 
 transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ? 
 Ye have made the commandment of God of none efiect 
 by your tradition.'' — Matt, xv, 3, 6. 
 
 8th. The design of the Gospels proves their suffi- 
 ciency. " These are written that ye might believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing 
 ye might have life through his name." — John xx, 31. 
 
 9th. Those who will not hear the Scriptures are hope- 
 less. " If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, nei- 
 ther will they be persuaded though one rose from the 
 dead."— Luke xvi, 31. 
 
 10th. The most plausible objection against the Bible, 
 as an all-sufficient rule, is that proposed by the Jesuits 
 and reiterated by ignorant Protestants, viz; ''Is the Bible 
 the rule as it lies on the shelf? the Bible as you peruse 
 it ? or, is your opinion of the Bible the rule ? " To which 
 the reply is sufficient, Is your creed or traditions the rule 
 as they lie on the shelf \ or as you peruse them ? or is 
 your opinion of them your rule ? Every objection urged 
 against the Bible applies with fourfold force against ail 
 other rules. 
 
 11th. ]Xo man is capable of making rules for that 
 which he does not understand ; hence, human rules are 
 necessarily imperfect, originating, as they do, with those 
 who acknowledge religion to be a mystery, and who do 
 .not understand our nature. God, alone, understands our 
 nature and its wants, and the correct principles of its 
 government. 
 
316 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 12th. Other rules are proved to be imperfect, not only 
 by their diversity, but by their entire failure either to 
 unite the clmrch, or to keep it pure. 
 
 13th. There is no advance in the Creed, it is the stereo- 
 typecl error of an ignorant and barbarous age. To see 
 it we look back, and they are chained back who embrace 
 it; and such, not only caiise^ but continue divisions in 
 the church of Christ. 
 
 14tli. To be reconciled to God — the sum of religion 
 is to be reconciled to God's law — God's will ; that is to 
 be reconciled to the Bible. This leads to reconciliation 
 with all the children of God. But the adoption of a 
 human Creed, while it reconciles us to a party, separates 
 us from our fellow Christians, and can never assure us of 
 reconciliation to God — since we are not assured that the 
 Creed itself is approved by God. It seems to me, that 
 while we only see in part, and know in part, we should 
 desire to be guided wholly by the divine rule, instead of 
 impeaching its perfection, and substituting other laws. 
 Bible laws are unappreciated, simply because they are 
 unstudied ; and unstudied, because the people are taught 
 that they are not'a sufficient rule for the Church. 
 
 loth. That there may be true religion without human 
 forms, an evangelical faith without human Creeds, and a 
 true Church without sectarianism, is just as true, as that 
 the true Church existed prior to these forms, creeds, and 
 sects. 
 
 16th. The Christians hold it as a fundamental prin- 
 ciple of our most holy religion, that we receive the Bible 
 as our rule of faith and practice, to the exclusion of all 
 other authoritative rules ; but in this we professs not to 
 have been actuated by singular motives, but rather to 
 have embraced the principles ever advocated by the 
 wisest and best men, whose virtues have adorned the 
 Christian religion. Turn to which of the great expounders 
 of our faith we will, and we find them ever defending 
 this cardinal principle. 
 
 I lay my hand on the Soripiure Manual^'* published 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 317 
 
 and commended by the brightest constellation of Ameri- 
 can ministers, and I read tliat — 
 
 " The only God-given rale of faith and practice is the 
 Bible." 
 
 I take np the ^^Westminster Asserribly^s Confession 
 of FaitTi^^ and I read there, that — 
 
 " Tiie Bible contains tlie whole counsel of God, con- 
 cerning all things necessary for his own glory, or man's 
 salvation, faith and life," 
 
 If I turn to the most popular hymn books, I still read: 
 
 "Men's books with heaps of chaff are stored, 
 God's book, the golden grains afford." 
 
 Dr. Lyman BeecJier^ one of America's most honored 
 ministers, says: 
 
 " It is too late in the day to force Creeds down men's 
 throats ! "We must rely upon Biblical interpretation." 
 
 I open Butterwortli' s Concordance^ improved hy 
 Dr. Adam Clarl:e^^ and find, There is nothing rela- 
 tive to the actions, words, or thoughts of men, nor any- 
 thing respecting our duty to God or men, but what is 
 included or inculcated in the sacred Oracles," The 
 Bible, it calls, " The Christian's storehouse of all sup- 
 plies ; his museum of the greatest rarities and curiosities ; 
 his sanctuary and hiding-place ; his glass, tlu^ugh which 
 are seen all objects, both of time and eterenity — and in 
 which the sinner may ever see reflected, the moral image 
 of the soul," 
 
 The honored RicTiard Baxter says, " The rule that all 
 must agree in, must be one that is above all. Never 
 will the Church iiave full unity, till the SCRIPTURE 
 SUFFICIENCY be more generally acknowledged. You 
 complain of many opinions, and ways ; and many you 
 will still have, till the ONE RULE— the Scriptures— be 
 the standard of our religion. Two things have set the 
 Church on fire, and been the plagues of it above one 
 thousand years. First; Enlarging our creed, and making 
 more fundamentals than God ever made ; and Second, 
 
318 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Composing, and so imposing onr creeds and confessions, 
 in our own words and phrases." 
 
 Milton^ the immortal poet, says, " For my part, I ad- 
 here to the Holy Serij^tures alone." 
 
 Wadington^ beloved of all, says, "The first Christians 
 had no written creed — they expressed their belief in the 
 language of Scripture — therefore, their variations were 
 without schism, and their diiierences without acrimony." 
 
 21. D^Auhigne says, " The all-sufficiency of the Word 
 is clearly established" — " if, therefore, any ofier you as a 
 rule, traditions, either of the earlier ages, or of the 
 Reformation, reject them." " Endure, I implore you, my 
 reiterated entreaties in regard to it." 
 
 Mr. Flood's Twenty-first reply : 
 
 1 had hoped, that my brother would have confined 
 himself to the proposition, that the making of a Consti- 
 tution and Discipline for the government of the Church, 
 is contrary to the Word of God, or is positively prohib- 
 ited. The first thing to which he directs your attention, 
 is, the work containing the Constitution and Discipline 
 of the Methodist Protestant Church, which, he says, is a 
 little book of no consequence. I hold the little book in 
 my hand. In Art. Vll, it is said, " Neither the General 
 Conference, nor any Annual Conference, shall assume 
 power, to authorize or sanction any thing inconsistent 
 with the morality of the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 This is the principle which I defend. The Church has 
 a right to form and enforce rules, only so far as they are 
 in accordance with the Word of God. The rule that 
 relates to the expulsion of numbers, and all Church 
 trials, it is stated, should be conducted on Gospel prin- 
 ciples only. My brother then quotes several passages of 
 Scripture, to show that the Bible is an all-sufficient rule 
 of faith and practice. "All Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration of God," cfcc. " If any man teach othei-wise, and 
 consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is accord- 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 819 
 
 ing to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but 
 doting about questions and strifes of words." 1 Tim. vi, 
 3. My brother displayed the fruits of his knowledge by 
 turning round, and charging his opponent that he was 
 thus proud, and referred to a passage in the Psalms, try- 
 ing to make the impression upon the minds of his breth- 
 ren, that he was one of those proud boasters. AVhat 
 that has to do with the right of the Church to make a 
 Constitution, I am not able to say. 
 
 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," &c. 
 What application this has to Church government, I am 
 not able to say. My brother is entitled to great credit 
 for theological research. I imagined that we met for the 
 purpose of discussing the right to make a Constitution, 
 &c. He says, all Scripture is profitable; we agree — for 
 instruction, we agree. But this is all addressed to the 
 man of God, not to the Church. The Church, signifies a 
 body met together to transact business, whether religious 
 or not; it is applicable to any civil body. (You may 
 shake your head). Lawful or unlawful, the term, in its 
 original meaning, was thus used; but, by common con- 
 sent, it applies to the church universal — or, in two senses, 
 embraces the Church militant and the Church trium])h- 
 ant. Drs. Benson, Clarke, Watson, Buck, and all otiier 
 authors tliat have treated upon this subject, give the 
 same opinion. My opponent then proceeds to examine 
 this little book, and speaks of it in a most contemptuous 
 manner — holds it up to the public, and says, I have 
 denied portions of it. I desire my audience to notice 
 the intentions of my brother to dodge the question. We 
 have a little more latitude than on the solemn subjects 
 we treated of before, and I warn him that I shall take 
 ofi* my gloves. He says, the colored people are denied 
 their rights. 
 
 The Article says that all white male members, in full 
 communion and fellowship, of twenty-one years of age, 
 shall be entitled to vote. This rule arose from the fact, 
 of the existence of slavery in the southern states, where 
 
320 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 it was known that a slave might be influenced bj the 
 master. Tliere are some little things in the Discipline that 
 I object to, and I agitated this matter at the late General 
 Conference, have a nile against stationing ministers, 
 except for a limited time, and some of iis thought that it 
 might be improved. But this does not produce an alien- 
 ation of mv affections from the Methodist Protestant 
 Church. I never expect to find any body of men agree- 
 ing with me in every particular. But my brother puts 
 words into my mouth, and then draws his own conclu- 
 sions. He goes on from talking about the Methodist 
 Protestant Church, to talking.about infant baptism; and 
 if he supposes I am going to chase him all over the 
 world, he is quite mistaken. He reminded me, in this 
 performance, of the sailor, who had been accustomed to a 
 seafaring life, but concluded to change it for the farming 
 business. The farmer who hired him, took him to a fal- 
 low field, to give him some lessons in plowing: '* Which 
 way shall I go asked the sailor. '*Just go toward 
 that red heifer," said the farmer, pointing, as he spoke, 
 to a heifer just across the field. He started, and the far- 
 mer supposed it would be all right. An hour or two 
 afterward, when he returned to see how his new man 
 was getting along, he found the field covered over with 
 marks in ever}' possible direction, and on the farmer in- 
 quiring what he had been doing, " I am following the 
 red heifer," said he. I do not intend to follow the red 
 heifer : not that I compare my brother to one. 
 
 He feels like the Irishman, who, with a companion, 
 saw a lot of horses in the field : I suppose," said Pat, 
 
 we are as much entitled to ride, as to walk, in this free 
 country ;" so one took an old horse, and the other a 
 young one. They had never been on horses before. The 
 young horse began to kick up, and try to throw his 
 rider : poor Pat was frightened, and screauied, Help 
 and murder," holding on to the animal's mane with all 
 his might: ''Why don't you get off ?" shouts out his 
 companion to him. " I can hardly stick on, so how shall 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 821 
 
 I get off?" replied he. So with my friend, he can hardly 
 stick on, so how shall he get off ? He comes here to 
 prove that we liave no right to make a Constitution and 
 
 he speaks of philosophy and vain deceit, and says that 
 his opponent would attempt to exercise this influence 
 over him ; so that I am charged with hypocrisy and vain 
 deceit ; and yet, he hoped in his prayer, that no word 
 would be uttered that would not be in accordance with 
 the dignity and position of Christian ministers. With 
 respect to the passage he quoted from Peter: '-The 
 Scriptures are sufficient to make us wise unto salvation," 
 &c., there is no church in the land that teaches anything 
 else. My brother says that to them the Bible is the only 
 and all-sufficient nile of faith, and practice. I have before 
 me that which seems to be evidence to the contrary. 
 
 Mr. Flood begins to read from the Minutes of the 
 Deer Creek Christian Conference : " That a committee 
 
 of three be appointed to examine the standing of ," 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 Me. Scmmereell. — I object to his reading that which 
 impeaches the character of any person. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I will not be interrupted in this way. I 
 insist upon my brother taking his seat. 
 
 Me. Scmmereell. — I appeal to the Moderators. 
 Me. Flood. — I want to show you how you do busi- 
 ness. That you have a Discipline, and what it is. It 
 is my intention to lift the sheep-skin. 
 
 Mr. Caleb Thomas — (Clerk of the Deer Creek Con- 
 ference), claims the "Minutes." 
 
 J. M. PYooD. — Oh ! if you are ashamed of your ''Dis- 
 cipline," take it away. I want the congregation to dis- 
 tinctly notice, that I borrowed this book for . 
 
 The Moderators. — We wish the speaker to under- 
 stand that this matter is under considei-ation. 
 
 J. M. Flood. — I borrowed this book, and that man 
 comes, and because his " Discipline " is about to be 
 
 He quoted the apostle, where 
 
 • exposed, takes it forcibly from me. 
 
322 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mk. Caleb Thomas. — I wish to explain that Mr. Flood 
 called on me, saying J) e understood I had the Records of 
 our annual Conference ; he said he wanted to examine 
 them. I told him he could have them, not thinking in 
 the least, that he would bring it up here for public 
 examination. No doubt, they have examined as many 
 men's characters, as we have. This is the reason I 
 object to this book being read. 
 
 J. M. Flood. — You see their Discipline is in a cor- 
 ner ; ours is open for the world. I have not said a word 
 about a man's character. 
 
 Mk. Summerbell. — Yes, you have. 
 
 MoDEEATOKs. — The decision of the Moderators is, that 
 the speaker has a right to the Records, and to all histori- 
 cal facts connected with the subject under discussion, 
 but not so as to reflect upon the character of any person. 
 The names of all individuals must be left blank. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I will not be hampered. 
 
 Stranger. — Call it Mr. A. or Mr. B, 
 
 Moderators. — Our decision is, that the names of per- 
 sons whose character is involved, shall be left blank. 
 
 Mr. Flood reads: "Resolved, that each Church has 
 the right and power to settle all ditSculties. 
 
 ''''Resolved^ That a committee of three be appointed to 
 wait on A. and B., in order to effect an adjustment of the 
 difficulties existing between them, and see the measures 
 of our last session of Conference, that they be carried out 
 by those who engaged to comply with the report of the 
 committee of that Conference, and that A., B. and C, 
 compose said committee. Here is a declaration as to 
 the power which each Church has, according to their 
 ' Discipline.* I want chapter and verse, to prove that 
 their Church has a right to settle difficulties, by a com- 
 mittee or assembly of the Church. If he cannot give it, 
 he has a Discipline outside their professions. 
 
 Met in annual session at Williamsport, Pickaway 
 county, 0., Aug. 14, A. D. 1851, at 10 o'clock A. M. 
 Called to order by Clerk ; prayer by . 
 
CONSTITUTIOXS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 823 
 
 "A Committee was then appointed to nominate a Pre- 
 sident to preside over oar deliberations. Committee con- 
 sisting of A., B. and C. We, yom- committee, beg leave 
 
 to report the name of . 
 
 Resolved^ That be our Chairman, dm-ing the 
 
 present session of this Conference. 
 
 "A resolution was then offered, and received, that 
 the candidates for ordination be examined, by a commit- 
 tee appointed bv the chair, bearing upon their sentiments 
 of doctrine that may be cardinal ; and the chair appointed 
 A., B. and C, said committee. 
 
 Resolved^ Tliat the request of for a letter, be 
 
 laid over until the next annual Conference." 
 
 I should like chapter and verse for all this. TV"e have 
 similar Rules and Discipline, but ours is printed and 
 open to the world ; but thev profess they have none but 
 the Bible. 
 
 I will read from the Gosjyel Herald^ the organ of their 
 Church. It bears date July 13. 
 
 "Minufes of the Korthem lUinoi^ and Wisconsin CJiristian Con- 
 ference, held at Bonas Prairie, Boone Co., Illinois. 
 ''According to previous notice, a part of the ministers, 
 and some of the delegates, met on Friday, the I6th of 
 June, 1854, to form a Pastoral Association; and after 
 much discussion, and the objects of the society fairly 
 presented, the association was organized. Saturday and 
 Sunday were devoted to religious exercises — preaching 
 and social worship. Monday, 19th. met in Annual Ses- 
 sion ; J. Walworth was elected President, and J. L. 
 Towner, Secretary. Prayer by A. L. Conant. Then pro- 
 ceeded to the appointment of committees. Afterward, 
 to the examination of chnrches. 
 
 Resolved. That J. L. Towner deliver an address before 
 the next Conference, and that J. Walworth be his alter- 
 nate. That J. L. Towner, and S. Parsons, be our dele- 
 gates to the Iowa Christian Conference, and that Eli 
 Linscolt, and David Pice, to the Xorthern Indiana and 
 Southern Michigan Christian Conferen^-^ ^' ' ~ 
 
824 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Bradley, J. Walworth, J. L. Towner, and S. S. Kimball 
 be our delegates to the United States Convention in 
 October next. That collections be taken np in the several 
 congregations to assist the delegates in paying the ex- 
 pense of the journey to Cincinnati, and the amount for- 
 warded to the clerk as soon as September next. 
 
 "The next general Convention of the Christian denom- 
 ination will meet in the Christian Church in Cincinnati, 
 Ohio, on the first Wednesday, October the 4th, 1854, at 
 10 o'clock, A. M." 
 
 I want to know their authority for all this. If it is in 
 the Bible, as they profess, let us have the chapter and 
 verse. If the brother can not prove his authority for all tliis, 
 from the Bible, I want him to have the honesty to say so. 
 I, too, hold that the Bible is the highest law, and that no 
 Church has a right to make any law that interferes with 
 the law of God. My brother has wandered ofi' the track 
 he was on before. Call no man master," said he; this 
 is the language of Christ ; there is no absolute superiority 
 in the Church ; no natural right for any one to lord it over 
 God's heritage. One is your master, even Christ, and 
 all ye are brethren. Making Constitutions and Disci- 
 plines, he says, causes divisions, and is therefore anti- 
 Christian ; but what is it makes these divisions? Tliese 
 Creeds and Constitutions do, says he, "and no one else 
 in the world could receive ours." He says, we ought 
 to give up ours, as well as our distinctive name. We 
 prefer to be called by the name by which we are com- 
 monly designated. We might be called " Christians," 
 but has not almost every form of skepticism been propa- 
 gated in the name of Christ ? My brother now gets 
 back to the subject of the human and divine nature, and 
 says this doctrine can not be proved. Has the Church 
 of Christ, since the days of Christ, a right to make Rules 
 and Discipline for her government ; therefore, because 
 she has not the right, therefore Jesus Christ is not both 
 God and man ; and if he be, it should not be made a 
 subject of legislation in the Church whether it should be 
 believed or not. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 825 
 
 He refers to the flxct, that for the origin of these Creeds 
 we have to look back to the dark ages, back to Wesley 
 and others. According to my friend, Wesley should 
 have been a school-boy to him, then he would have 
 learned that the making of Creeds and Constitutions was 
 out of place. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Twenty-second address : 
 
 Although Mr. Wesley was linked in with the Creed 
 believers, yet he very much disapproved of Creeds, and 
 under other circumstances, no doubt, would have aban- 
 doned them. Allowances are to be made for circum- 
 stances ; but when the evil of a thing is plainly seen, it 
 should be abandoned. My brother has not yet harmo- 
 nized the contradictions in his Discipline, which says that 
 the Word of God is the 07ily rule of faith and conduct. 
 Now if this be true, then his Constitution is no rule at 
 all. My brother now talks of taking oft' his gloves and 
 coming at me in earnest. I am sorry that he is so very 
 angry. I do hope that he will try to be gentle, or I may 
 get frightened ; for I am not very courageous ; however, 
 1 do not feel alarmed yet, and am in hopes that I shall 
 live till night. But he threatens tremendously, and it 
 will be proof of indomitable courage in me if I do. 
 Still he has attempted to frighten me so often that I am 
 becoming used to it, and like the cry of " wolf! wolf!" 
 I cease to be concerned at his cry. His human thunder 
 lacks the lightning which makes it terrific, and it has 
 now been sounding in my ears so many days, that it 
 has ceased to be alarming ; still he had better beware, 
 for he might frighten me, and that would be very bad. 
 He quotes the Mhmtes of the Deer Creek Conference, 
 as though that book were our Constitution, Discipline, 
 or Creed ; but that is merely the records of that body, 
 showing their modus operandi in executing our divine 
 Constitution — the record of the deeds of that Conference. 
 And though I rejected all that book, and all their acts, 
 yet I might be a member of that Christian church all 
 
S26 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 my life — for their acts are only of local authoritv, and their 
 doinirs have never been either examined or sanctioned by 
 the Church at lari^e. No such bouk is any test of fellow- 
 ship with us. lie says that he acknowledges nothing iu 
 his Discipline, only as it agrees with God's book. If so, 
 why not accept the Bible just as God gives it to us ? If 
 nothing is right but the Bible, then why not take the 
 Bible ? But it is not so. There is much there that tlie 
 Bible approves not. It is the Constitution of their Cliurch; 
 take it away, and they would cease to be a Methodist 
 Protestant Church. 
 
 He can not see why I should quote the text that the 
 Bible ''is profitable for .doctrine, reproof, instruction in 
 righteousness, and able to make the man of God perfect — 
 wise unto salvation, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works." But ray brother is not wise, and can not see 
 afar off. What more is needed than to have a book of 
 doctrine, reproof and instruction, able to make us per- 
 fect — thoroughly furnished to all good works, unless we 
 desire to avoid this doctrine and reproof, and to be fur- 
 nished to bad works { He says, that the Church is a secu- 
 lar assembly. The word Church is an English modifica- 
 tion of Krpcaacoc, which signifies the Lord's, as t/te Lord's 
 house, the Lords day, or the Lord's people, and has no 
 connection with ^xxtjr^nia.^ which occurs so frequently in 
 the New Testament, and signifies an assembly, secular 
 or otherwise. He has not yet proved the right of his 
 Church to make a difference between the rights of white 
 and colored people. If it was made for the South, is 
 God's law diflerent South from what it is Xorth \ Why 
 then, not alter it for the Xorth ? But if he objects to the 
 Constitution, why does he not leave the church ? He 
 objects to my noticing infant baptism ; but every thing in 
 his Constitution is now open for discussion. He attempts 
 to enliven his side by anecdotes not at all apropos. The 
 story of the red heifer is only applicable to himself, who 
 thus follows up, in its crooked windings, his changeable 
 Creed ; and not at all to us, who foUow the unchangeable 
 
C0NSTITUTI0J7S AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 32T 
 
 law of God's Word. And himself, too, is the Paddy, 
 who could not get off his pony, because be could not 
 stick on: for he is thus with his Creed — his reason for 
 not abandoning it is, that he does not regard it as obliga- 
 tory. Bat such anecdotes are unworthy of this place — 
 they have been told and laughed over, perhaps, in every 
 rum-hole in the country. Had he given us one passage 
 of Scripture instead of these stories, so unbecoming 
 the house of God, it might have done his cause some 
 service. But that is just what is lacking. There are 
 plenty of texts, but none authorizing Methodist ministers 
 to make Constitutions for the government of God's peo- 
 ple. Hence his great efibrt is on stories ; but do such 
 anecdotes prove that the Church has a right to legislate 
 for the Church, and make Constitutions and tests of faith ? 
 The Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God, 
 can ever promote a true Christian Church ; all other rules 
 of necessity create sectarian churches. 
 
 John Locke^ the great Christian philosopher, says of 
 the Bible, It is all pure, all sincere ; nothing too much, 
 nothing wanting. How that can be called the Church 
 of Christ, which is established upon laws which are not 
 his, and which excludes such persons from its communion 
 as he will one day receive into the kingdom of heaven, 
 / understand notP 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke says, '-The sacred writings, and 
 they alone, contain what is necessary for faith and prac- 
 tice ; and that no man, number of men, society, church, 
 council, presbytery, consistory, or conclave, has dominion 
 over any man's faith. The Word of God aloj^e, is his 
 rule." 
 
 The excellent Robert Hall says, that the " Bible as 
 (is) the great and only standard of Christian faitii and 
 practice." And when Wesleij^ truly a great reformer, 
 astonished the churches by the assertion, that men should 
 live holy lives^ he was styled, homo unius lihri^^^ " a 
 man of one book ;" for he and his young companions 
 united upon this Book of heaven. They were, one and 
 
328 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 all, determined to be " Bihle Christians?'^ Hence the re- 
 proacliful epithets of ^^BiUe moths^^^ and ''"'Bible hlqots^'' 
 were applied to them bj their enemies. Ko doubt but 
 the peculiar feature of Mr, W€sle}js piety was as much 
 owing to his regard for the teachings of this great Book, 
 as the declensions and dissensions among his followers 
 are owing to a departure from it. 
 
 At the present time nearl}^ all the Baptist cliurches 
 in the United States, with many of other denominations, 
 have cast off all other rules. One of the best discourses 
 against human Creeds, is that published by Charles 
 Beecher, at the dedication of the Second Presbyterian 
 church, at Fort Wayne, Ind., Feb. 22, 1846, on the text, 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
 profitable lor doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in righteousness, tliat the man of God may 
 be perfect — thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 
 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. The learned divine therein maintains, 
 that,— 
 
 First: "The Bible is a Creed, sufficient, under God's 
 blessing, to regulate the belief, experience, and practice, 
 of the whole Christian world." 
 
 Second: The substitution of any other Creed, for either 
 of these purposes, is one step in apostasy. And ably 
 does the noble writer argue, and triumphantly does he 
 sustain his bold positions. 
 
 The noble IIuss^ plead for the Bible alone ; WicUiff 
 looked lor unadulterated truth to no other book. 
 
 John Bunyan^ the author of the Pilgrim's Progress, 
 belonged truly to a Christian Church. The Bible was 
 the only Creed of that Church, and Christian character 
 the only test of fellowship. Though Bunyan himself 
 was baptized, yet immersion was not made a test, by 
 either him or the Church, and Christian is the only name 
 assumed by this great religious luminary. 
 
 The Bible — the Bible ! has ever been the appeal of 
 the persecuted. When Mr. Carson was expelled from 
 his church, in Ireland, by the soldiers, he took the Holy 
 
CONSTITUTIOXS AND DISCIPLINES. 829 
 
 Bible in Ms arms^ saying, let all who follow the Bible 
 come with me, and the congregation left the house. In 
 short, the most able and praiseworthy positions ever as- 
 sumed by the ministers of Christ — Luther, Chillingworth, 
 Wesley, or others, have been taken upon The Bible, 
 and the Bible alone." This is the lever which moved 
 the hosts of the Reformation. "With this truth, the Re- 
 former has ever found himself doubly armed. He has 
 found the Bible to be, at once, both " sword and shield.'' 
 And the only fault of the Christians^ if fault it be, is in 
 carrying out iii practice^^ what an enlightened Church 
 has ever taught in theory. 
 
 True, many say that we are wrong in this, but we 
 crave your indulgent consideration of the establishment 
 of the Church by our great Immanuel ; consider its history 
 Tinder the inspired apostles; consider its trials in the 
 early ages ; consider the united testimony of its holy 
 martyrs ; all these appeal to the Bible — the Bible alone ! 
 If they were sincere, then we are approved ; if they were 
 correct, then we can not be wrong ; if they were wrong, 
 then those who sustain Creeds may be right : and Creeds 
 may be an improvement upon the system of our blessed 
 Saviour and his apostles. 
 
 The word of God commends itself to us as an only 
 nile of faith and practice, if we consider, that since the 
 world began, it has been the only rule, or guide, ever 
 commended to our religious observance by divine au- 
 thority. Neither the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit ; 
 neither angel, prophet, or apostle, has ever either pointed 
 us to any other, or failed to warn us against all others. 
 God ever assures us that he requires us to walk by no 
 other rules, and to obey no other laws, than those of his 
 Word, in order to render unto him acceptable worship, 
 and secure eternal life. 
 
 It is written, '* In vain do ye worship me, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men.'' — Mark vii, 7. 
 
 Said Jesus, Ye make void the law of God through 
 your traditions." — Mark vii, 13. 
 28 
 
830 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 *'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command- 
 ments." — Luke X, 19. 
 
 " They have Moses and the prophets, if they hear 
 not them, neither would they be persuaded though one 
 should arise from the dead." — Luke xvi, 31. 
 
 " Search the Scriptures" — " the Scriptures can not be 
 broken." — I hid. 
 
 Said the wise man., "Fear God, and keep his command- 
 ments, for this is the whole duty of man." — Ec. xii, 13. 
 
 Said the sv^eet singer of Israel: "The law of the 
 Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of 
 the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes 
 of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The com- 
 mandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. 
 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever. The 
 judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous all to- 
 gether." — Ps. xix, 7-9. 
 
 " Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? by 
 taking heed thereto, according to thy word." — Ps. cxix, 9. 
 
 " Thou, through thy commandments, hast made me 
 wiser than mine enemies. I understand more than the 
 ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained 
 my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 
 Through thy precepts I get understanding ; therefore I 
 hate every false way." — Ps. cxix, 98-101. 
 
 " By thy commandments is thy servant warned ; and 
 in keeping them there is great reward." God said to 
 Abraham, " Ye shall lay up these my words in your 
 heart, and in your soul; and ye shall teach them to 
 yom' children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thy 
 house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when 
 thou liest down, and when thou risest up." — Deut. xi, 18. 
 
 To Isaiah, "To this man will I look, even to him that 
 is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my 
 word," — Isa. xlvi, 2. The wise man says, "Add not 
 unto his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found 
 a liar."— Prov. xxx, 6. And John says, " If any man 
 shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book. If any man shall 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 831 
 
 take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, 
 God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and 
 out of the holy city, and Jr^^m the things which are writ- 
 ten in this book." — Kev. xxii, 18, 19. 
 
 The inspired apostles say, " All Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for 
 reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; 
 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
 nished to all good works." — 1 Tim. ii, 16. 
 
 " Whoso, looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and 
 continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a 
 doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." 
 James i, 25. 
 
 And the prophet says, " To the law^ and to the testi- 
 mony, if they speak not' according to this Word, it is 
 because there is no light in them." — Isaiah viii, 20. 
 
 The promise is, " As many as walk according to this 
 rule, peace be on them." — Gal. vi, 16. 
 
 And the warning, "Though we, or an angel from 
 heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we 
 have preached, let him be accursed." — Gal. i, 8. 
 
 In short, all the promises of the Bible are predicated 
 upon our obeying the Bible. It is, " Blessed are they 
 that do his commandments." Such are the blessings 
 and promises connected with God's Word. Neither is 
 there any blessing pronounced or promise given, for 
 believing in, or walking by, any other rule whatever ; but 
 we are ever taught that this, and this alone, is able to 
 make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 Again the Scriptures commend themselves to us, as an 
 all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, when we reflect 
 that the apostolic Church, and indeed the primitive 
 Church, for the first three centuries, had no other. Had 
 any other been necessary, the apostles would doubtless 
 have provided it ; yea, the prophetic eye of Jesus, that 
 pierced the vista of future ages, and saw the pathway of 
 his Church through all coming years, would have pro- 
 vided a Creed ere he said, it is finished. 
 
832 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ox 
 
 "Who does not long for the i-eturn of those times, of 
 creedless purity and apostolic faith, when the astonished 
 heatlien exclaimed: See how these Christians love one 
 another^ 
 
 Mr. Flood's Twenty-second reply : 
 
 My brother comphiins that I do not quote Scripture. 
 It is his business to quote Scripture, and prove his posi- 
 tion. Of all the speeches I ever listened to, his last is the 
 most peculiar ! I refer him to Job xxxvi, 10. lie open- 
 eth their ear to Discipline." I quote one passage merely 
 for my brother to give attention to, before I proceed to 
 review his position. What he has proved, to show that 
 the Church has no right to make Discipline, you will dis- 
 cover as we proceed. He sets out by saving that he has 
 heard the cry of '*wolf,'- "wolf!'- He does not say he 
 sees the animal, but I propose to lift the sheepskin, and 
 then he will have a sight. 
 
 My brother quotes, " teaching for doctrine the com- 
 mandments of men." "Who has taught for doctrine the 
 commandments of men ? Has he found it in any Disci- 
 pline in the world ? We are talking about government, 
 not doctrine. My opponent is here to prove, that the 
 Church has no right to govern herself. And then he 
 says, we teach for doctrine the commandments of men, 
 because we make Discipline. 
 
 He is now become very pious, and very loving, although 
 in his first speech he called me a hypocrite, and said, " he 
 will be up here trying to deceive you." Who is a 
 deceiver, but tlie man who intends to enforce falsehood 
 upon the ])eople ? Now, my brother wants to be very 
 loving. This blow of hot and cold breath, by a minister 
 of Jesus Clu'ist, is very bad. Who is it that has betrayed 
 bad feeling I Who is it that has made personal attacks ? 
 First I wiis charged, most pointedly, with ignorance ; 1 
 could not see far because of ignorance and blindness, but 
 now my opponent wishes ^o be very loving. If I am 
 that ignoramus, and if I am that man disposed to deceive,, 
 treat me accordingly, as would an honest man. 
 
COXSTirUTIOXS AXD DISCIPLDsES. 
 
 333 
 
 He iDsists upon taking the name that God gives. I 
 learn that the followers of Cnrist were first called Chris- 
 tians at Antioch ; but the Christians had an organization 
 before they met at Antioch ; they were called Nazarenes. 
 This brother is very anxious that I should not threaten 
 him, and scare him ; he intimates that he may become 
 alarmed. He says, 1 have been boasting ; but I leave it 
 to the audience to decide, who has indulged in the 
 greatest amount of braggadocia. Then he kindly advises 
 me not to desecrate the pulpit. I thought an anecdote 
 was appropriate to the pulpit, as an equivalent for his 
 attack in calling a friend a hypocrite ; leaving the pulpit, 
 as lie did, under such strong expressions of love, and then 
 venting such expressions of spite. 
 
 Referring to this hool\ he says our Connection does not 
 receive it. He quotes Locke, (?) to show that a Church 
 not founded upon the law of God, can not stand. He 
 quotes Clarke, to the same effect : very excellent I It is 
 the very position assumed by the Methodist Protestant 
 Discipline. What Church in Christendom, does not 
 make Jesus and his Word the foundation upon which 
 they build \ 
 
 Beecher is quoted on faith, experience, and practice. 
 The Bible is enough for faith, that is true ; it is sufficient 
 of itself for faith, experience, and practice, but in the 
 organization of a visible Church, it is utterly impossible 
 that it could exist, without some rules of order drawn up 
 independently of the plain letter of the Word of God. I 
 want my brother to understand, that wherever a Church 
 of tiieii-s is organized, they have their books to i-ecord the 
 names of membership and the transactions of the Church, 
 and have a clerk to do that work. Do not be goins about 
 the country, to make people believe that Methodists have 
 left the Bible. Our Discipline has been held up to scorn 
 in this place, and ridiculed as a little book unworthy of 
 notice ; and at the same time, they are afraid to let their 
 own books be seen, and bear them off after they have 
 been once lent, because that it is not to be seen what was 
 
334 
 
 mscrssiox ox 
 
 their mode of transacting business. [Heads.] " Their 
 Annual Conference met at 'W'illiams county, Ohio. Aug. 
 15, 1851, and were called to order bv the election of a 
 Clerk.'' I want to know what chapter and verse will 
 give authority for this. 
 
 My opponent unchristianizes others when they make a 
 Discipline ; I fear it is not in him to have the honesty to 
 acknowledge that he falls into the same snare. (?) My 
 brother wishes me to preserve my temper. Have I 
 called him ignorant ? Have I intimated that he was a 
 deceiver I These words are brother SummerbelTs. and 
 not mine. O I consistency is a jewel ! He introduces 
 the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into this 
 argument, and goes on to mention the Trinity, for he 
 could not keep it out ; he goes out of his way and drags 
 in the Trinity, and speaks of the Father, Son. and Holy 
 Ghost. What has that to do with this question ? He 
 says, we should receive the Word of God as true. Who 
 has ever questioned this ? The Word of God is able to 
 make us wise unto salvation ; but what has this to do 
 with the right of the Church to make Discipline ? He 
 says, Ye make void the law of God, by your traditions." 
 Whatever makes void the law of God, is not Discipline. 
 We are not governed by traditions ; our Book of Disci- 
 pline is open to the public. Every Methodist preacher 
 is a peddler, so to speak, of his Discipline, and to sell it 
 to any one who wants it, for a very small price ; and 
 yet he urges us, whatever we do, to abandon this Disci- 
 pline, and come to the Word of God, as though we had 
 to abandon our Discipline to come to the Word of God. 
 
 I will read Mosheim, Yol. i, 37. "I^either Christ 
 himself, nor his holy apostles, have commanded anything 
 clearly or expressly, concerning the external form of the 
 Church, or the precise method according to which it 
 should be governed. Those who imagine tliat Christ 
 himself, or the apostles by his direction or authority, ap- 
 pointed a certain fixed form of Church government, have 
 not determined what that form was. Hence, we may 
 
C0I7STITUTI0NS AND DISCIPLINES. 835 
 
 infer, that the regulation of this was, in some measure, 
 to be accommodated to the time, and left to the wisdom 
 and prudence of the chief rulei*s, both of the state and 
 of the Church. If, however, it be true, that the apostles 
 acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the 
 commands of their blessed Master, (and this no Christian 
 can call in question) it follows, that the form of govern- 
 ment which the primitive Church borrowed from that of 
 Jerusalem, the first Christian assembly established by 
 the apostles themselves, must be esteemed of divine 
 institution. But from this, it would be wrong to con- 
 clude that such a form is immutable, and ought to be 
 invariably observed ; for this, a great variety of events 
 may render impossible. In those early times, every 
 Christian Church consisted of the people, their leaders 
 and the ministers or deacons, and these indeed belong to 
 every religious society. The people were, undoubtedly, 
 .the first in authority ; for the apostles showed by their 
 own example, that nothing of moment was to be carried 
 on, or determined, without the consent of the Assembly ; 
 and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and 
 necessary in those critical times. It was, therefore, the 
 assembly of the people which chose rulers and teachers, or 
 received them by a free and authoritative consent when 
 recommended b}- others. The same people rejected or 
 confirmed by their sufirages, the laws that were proposed 
 by their rulers to the Assembly ; excommunicated profli- 
 gate and unworthy members of the Church ; restored the 
 penitent to their foifeited privileges ; passed judgment 
 upon the different subjects of controversy and dissension 
 that arose in their community ; examined and decided 
 the disputes which happened between the elders and 
 deacons; and in a word, exercised all that authority 
 which belongs to such as are invested with sovereign 
 power. The people had, in some measure, purchased 
 these privileges, by administering to the support of their 
 rulers, ministers, and poor, and by ofiering large and 
 generous contributions, when the safety or interest of the 
 
336 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 commnnity rendered them necessary. In these supplies, 
 each bore a part proportioned to his circumstances ; and 
 the various gifts which were then brought into the public 
 assemblies, were called oblations. 
 
 Such was the Constitution of the Christian Church in 
 its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous 
 nor splendid. Three or four presbyters, men of remark- 
 able piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations 
 in perfect harmony, nor did they stand in need of any 
 president or superior to maintain concord and order, 
 where no dissensions weiie known. 
 
 It is in strict accordance with this testimony, that the 
 Discipline of the Cliurch was not settled by Jesus or his 
 followers. No one insists that necessarily, all the Churches 
 shall have the same rule; but then there is no propriety 
 when he has a rule, in holding up the Bible and saying, 
 this is the only Discipline, when I have brought from a 
 corner, your Discipline. He tries to refute it by saying, 
 that all Christians do not receive it. Wlien our Disci- 
 pline is lield np, just remind them of tlv^it other, of which 
 they are so ashamed. If you have a Discipline in a 
 corner, bring it out, my brother, and don't tell the people 
 we have no other. I will again refer to Mosheim, Vol. i, 
 p. 39. "But the number of presbyters and deacons in- 
 creasing with that of the Churches, and the sacred work 
 of tlie ministry growing more painful and weighty, by a 
 number of additional duties, these new circumstances 
 required new regulations. It was then judged necessarj^, 
 that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom, 
 should preside in the council of presbyters, in order to 
 distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and 
 to be a center of union to the whole society." 
 
 Our friends have advanced on these Christians. I 
 liave not opposed the right of Churches to elect a presi- 
 dent, &c»; but in subsequent times, the Church thought 
 it sliould select number one, and call him President. 
 My brother stands here as our accuser, for doing the very 
 same thing they do themselves. I have before me, the 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 337* 
 
 proof of an election of president by their own body. See 
 Minutes of Nineteenth Annual Session of the Christian 
 Conference. Hei-e is a man elected President; I want 
 the chapter and verse for it. I attended the first Con- 
 ference ever held in this part of the country. The first 
 question proposed was, " Are Conferences Scriptural?" 
 It was discussed warmly, interestingly, for some length 
 of time, but all thought it better for the matter to be 
 settled among themselves. It was finally decided by a 
 majority, that it was a Scriptural proceeding ; and then 
 were elected President, Secretary, and Committees, and 
 all thought it was in accordance with the Scriptures. I 
 do not say that the proceedings of the Christians were 
 unscriptural ; but I do say, that the Scriptures enjoin us 
 to deal witli others as we would have others deal with us. 
 Now here is the Church ^Discipline, election of president, 
 &c., and I want all the rules and regulations of their 
 government, and I want chapter and verse for all this. 
 The only difference between our Discipline and theirs is, 
 that ours is printed, theirs is not; ours is printed, theirs 
 is to be found in scraps, scattered all over the land. 
 Here is another difference between us ; ours is a common 
 Discipline — they call theirs the Record of the Proceedings 
 of Conference, and the Record of the Proceedings of the 
 Church ; but if it is not Discipline, I should like to 
 know what it is ? My brother laughs. I thank you for 
 your compliments — you are rich in all that sort of thing. 
 I have met a mighty man to-day ; but he does not exactly 
 square himself on the subject — for he does not come up 
 to it. In the fourth Article of the Minutes of Conference 
 
 referred to, it is " Resolved, that • deliver an address 
 
 before the next Conference." I want the direct chapter 
 and verse for this ; for does it not regulate the action of 
 their Church ? direct the actions of their ministers ? It 
 
 also directs, " that and be delegates to such 
 
 and such places," &c. They speak of their meeting as 
 Christian Conference — why not give the name that God 
 has given ? I would like all these things found in the 
 29 
 
338 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Bible ; yet my brother says that his Discipline is in the 
 Bible. You see they liave an Annual Conference, a 
 United States Convention ; now if United States Con- 
 vention " occurs in the Bible, I would like to find it! 
 
 Mr. SuM^fERBELL's Twcuty-third address : 
 
 Kind friends — My brother's attempt thus far, to prove 
 that the Church has a right to make Constitutions and 
 Disciplines, is an entire failure. He relies on one text 
 of Scripture; one quotation from liuman authority, and 
 an appeal to the Minutes of a Conference; all of which, 
 we will examine. 
 
 Firsts The text. Job xxxvi, 10, ''^He opened their 
 ear to Disciplined But what Discipline ? Why did 
 not my brother quote it all ? This is the difiiculty 
 in all these human systems of religion ; half a text serves 
 much better than tlie whole. 1 will read on for my 
 brother, and see if it gives the Ciiurch a right to make 
 Disciplines, " end commanded that they return from 
 iniquity. If they obey and serve HIM, they shall spend 
 their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasure : but 
 if they obey not, they shall perish," &c. It seems to me, 
 that this requires us to leave the service of all human 
 S3"stems of righteousness, and commandments of men, 
 and serve God, as it is written : " Thou shalt worship the 
 Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," and gives 
 us no authority to make Constitutions. So that my 
 brother's only text tails him in his extremity. 
 
 Second^ He quotes Dr. Mosheim. But Mosheim says 
 nothing of the right of the Church to make Constitutions ; 
 not a word, but rather the contrary. He was combating 
 the authority of the bishops, according to the Episcopalian 
 Constitution, in favor of the liberty of the Churches to be 
 governed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and shows that they 
 had no human Discipline, but followed the example of 
 the Jerusalem Church ; so that this quotation is on our 
 side, and against our brother, and thus even his human 
 authority fails. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES, 
 
 339 
 
 Thirds My brother, faillnir in both the Bible and hu- 
 man aiitiiority, next seeks reiuge in our Conference book, 
 and endeavors to press this into his service. Could he 
 have found in it a Constitution for the Churches, or any 
 attempt to make a Constitution or Discipline, why then, 
 he would have the authority of the Deer Creek Confer- 
 ence — that '8 all I RiUher poor authority to justity him 
 in legislating for God's people. My brother, you have 
 forgotten that the question is not whether we have made 
 a Constitution, or whether the Deer Creek Conference 
 gives you the right ; but whether God has given this 
 right. But even here his failure was still more signal. 
 Here is his Constitution and Discipline. According to 
 this, a Constitution for the Church must embrace both 
 Creed and rules of government. So does his. Articles 
 of Religion and Discipline are included, and all called 
 a Constitution. But our Conference book is nothing of 
 the kind ; but barely a record of the proceedings of that 
 body of our people. There is there no Constitution, lor 
 the Bible is our only Constitution. There is there no 
 Discipline, for the Bible is our only Discipline. And 
 there is there no Creed, for the Bible is our only Creed. 
 And I now demand of my brother, that he either show in 
 that book a Constitution, Articles of Religion and Disci- 
 pline, or confess that he has misrepresented us. Xow, 
 to show both the folly and uniairness of such proceeding 
 in my brother, let me illustrate : 
 
 First. The Methodist Protestants have a human Dis- 
 cipline ; but heside this, they have Conferences and 
 Conference books. They meet, and pass resolutions. 
 Tiiey record the Minutes in their books. But they do 
 not call these annual records new Constitutions and 
 Disciplines, unless something moi-e than the Minutes of 
 their body be found there. They publish papers, and 
 appoint meetings ; but they do not call those new Disci- 
 plines, as he calls these things in us. 
 
 Seconds A Constitution is the fundamental law of the 
 land, nation, or body of people, whose Constitution it is ; 
 
340 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 but the Minutes of the proceedings of a body, are not the 
 fundamental law of that body ; nor yet, the discipline of 
 that body, much less the Creed ; but only a view of the 
 executive modus operandi of the action of the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Thirds Suppose a person should ask you for tlie Con- 
 stitution of the State of Ohio, and you should take up 
 the Records or Minutes of the Legislature, and begin to 
 
 read to him, that Mr. on such a day, offered such 
 
 and sucli resolutions, and say, this sir, is the Constitu- 
 tion of Ohio; would you not think that he was trifling 
 with you ? And yet, this is precisely the method of my 
 brother ; he takes a Conference Record, and calls it a 
 Constitution. Intelligent people will see that this proves 
 the ahsence of anything more to the point. My brother 
 does not like my quoting texts, and applying them to 
 him. You all know that these were not applied per- 
 sonally, but only to him, as the representative of his 
 Creed system; yet, I must be allowed to quote them. I 
 cannot refrain from quoting the Bible, even to please 
 my bi'Other, for the Bible is the only Constitution 
 and Discipline of the Christian Church ; and no one, 
 preacher or layman, has the right to make any other: but 
 according to my brother, every thing that we do or say^ 
 is a new Discipline. He complains of my treatment of 
 liis Cieed ; but why, if we are to discuss the question of 
 Disciplines ? He says that I have unchristianized some ; 
 but I think not, have I? He saj^s, that what makes void 
 the law, is not Discipline ; but Article seven of their 
 Disci})line makes void the law of God, in the rights of 
 colored people! He says that they have advanced on 
 these Christians ; but is the world made better for it ? 
 Then they were united, as the lieatlien said : how 
 these Christians lore each otherP^ JS'ow they are divided, 
 and the intidel says: ''''See how they hate each other I'''^ 
 But he thinks tliat no one insists that the Cluu'ches should 
 walk by the same rule ; but tlie apostle does. 
 
 But my brother demands of me to show him, chapter 
 and verse, for the right to keep a record of the names of 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 341 
 
 members of the Church. I refer him to Acts i, 15, 
 " The number of names together, were about one hun- 
 dred and twenty." But what is my brother's argument 
 here \ Only, tliat if we have no Scripture authority, (and 
 he says that we have this autliority.) why then, he will 
 insist upon it, that the names of the members are a Con- 
 stitution, Creed and Discipline. Yery well, then they 
 have more than one Discipline. As to the name Con- 
 ference, see Gal. ii, 6. 
 
 My brother still urges objections to the Christian name ; 
 but Clarke says, (and Clarke is authority with my bro- 
 ther.) that the original word signifies that they were so 
 called — Christians — by divine direction. See Acts xi, 26. 
 
 Aly brother says, that it is impossible to have a visible 
 Church, without a Constitution ; therefore, on his own 
 premises, he has to admit, that the apostolic Church had 
 a Constitution, or he must deny their visibility. The 
 latter, he dare not do, and hence, will be driven to 
 the former ; but that was too early for his. What 
 then, was their Constitution ? Why, the same as ours. 
 It was the Bible. (See Mosheim, Yol. i, p. 39, of which 
 my brother quoted a part.) They ever held that the 
 Scriptures were able to make us wise unto salvation, and 
 to make the man of God perfect ; thoroughly furnished 
 unto all good works. 
 
 Now, since the holy Bible was the Constitution of tlie 
 apostolic Church, in the days when the banner of the 
 cross was borne victoriously from Jerusalem, to the re- 
 motest nations, o'er oriental sands, and northern snows ; 
 o'er the classic fields of Greece, and amid the halls of the 
 world's capital, everywhere triumphant ; when sinners 
 were converted by thousands, and churches planted in 
 every clime ; when the divisions of sectariansm were 
 unknown, and the astonished heathen exclaimed : " See 
 how these Christians love one another," why should 
 GocVs holy Word not be the Constitution now ? 
 
 And here I take my second position, that the Church 
 now, has no right to make a Constitution. JMy brother 
 
842 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 admitted, first, that the Bible is the highest law in the 
 Church of God, and that any thing contrary thereto, is 
 void. This is the nature of a Constitution. The Bible 
 then, is the Constitution of the Christian Church, even 
 by my brother's admission. Webster says, that a Con- 
 stitution is the fundamental law ; and surely my bro- 
 ther will not deny, that the Bible is the fundamental law. 
 So that by his own admission, and the authority of 
 Webster, quoted by himself, I have proved that the Con- 
 stitution of the Church, is the Holy Bible. 
 
 And now the only question is, whether Christ has 
 delegated authority to others, to make anotJicr Consiitit- 
 tion. If Clu'ist has, I demand that he show us the text. 
 If, as my brother contends, Christ has left the Discipline 
 of the Clmrch an open question, to be determined by time 
 and place, 60 should we. We have no right to bind for 
 others, what he has left free for us all. He must admit, 
 that we have a right to practice^ what he has a right to 
 put in his Discipline ; for if it is not Scriptural, he has 
 no right to put it there, and if it is, we have sufficient 
 authority. So, if electing a president (Gr., Ejnscopiis^ 
 Bishop), is Scriptural, it is enough, if not, putting it in 
 the Discipline can not make it right. Let him show, 
 then, that something we practice is not Scriptural ; and 
 be sure, that he does not condemn himself in doing it. 
 
 To make a Constitution is an act of sovereign power — 
 above ordinary legislation ; but Christ is our King, and I 
 assert that he has given no one authority to legislate for 
 his kingdom on earth, but has taught us to pray that 
 God's will — that is, God's Discipline.^ not our own v:ill or 
 lav^s — that God's xi^ill might be done on earth, even as it 
 is done in heaven. But there are no commandments of 
 men, nor human Creeds there. The early Christians 
 held Conferences; yet they made no Disciplines — no 
 Creeds. That called the Apostles' Creed, was never seen 
 by the apostles, but was a symbol of the truths they had 
 taught, compiled by others in after years. If a Consti- 
 tution beside the Bible had been necessary, Christ, who 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AXD DISCIPLINES. 343 
 
 knew all the wants of his Church, through all coming 
 time, would have given it one ; or the apostles, whom 
 he left behind, would have compiled one. He desires to 
 know our authority for holding a Convention in Cincin- 
 nati, as though the Bible gave no such authoritv, but the 
 Discipline did. If the Bible does not, they have no right 
 to put it in their Discipline. Did my brother's Disci- 
 pline command him to hold this debate ? In the chapter 
 and verse where he finds the one, I will the other. 
 
 Jesus says, Ye call nie Lord and Master, and ye say 
 well, for so I am." Again, he says, '* Learn of me." He 
 was a teacher sent from God. We are his disciples, that 
 is, scholars ; and he thus sustains the relation to his Church 
 that a teacher does to his school. IS"ow, it is the duty 
 of disciples to obey the master; and of scholars to obey 
 the rules of the school — but not to legislate for it. Who 
 ever heard of a teacher leaving his scholars to make 
 their own Discipline? My brother has failed in every 
 effort to produce authority to make Constitutions and 
 Disciplines, as I have demonstrated. I will now proceed 
 with my argument for receiving the Bible alone as a Rule 
 of Faith and Government. This we do: 
 
 1. Because, it contains all the directions that God has 
 given to guide us from earth to heaven. 
 
 2. Because, by general consent, all who humbly form 
 their lives by its rules are saved. 
 
 3. Because, it contains the New Covenant of salvation, 
 with all its conditions. 
 
 4. Because, it contains the religious instructions giv^en 
 by all the inspired teachers God iias ever sent. 
 
 5. Because, it contains the rules, and discipline by 
 which millions have been saved. 
 
 6. Because, it is dictated by the only being capable of 
 constructing a perfect rule. 
 
 7. Because, there is no promised blessing for obedience 
 to any other rule. 
 
 8. Because, we are commanded to hear those who 
 speak in it, that we may be saved. 
 
344 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 9. Because, it tells ns just what character shall be 
 saved, aud who shall be lost. 
 
 10. Because, it tells us how to form such characters, 
 and where to look for aid. 
 
 11. Because, it tells us in many places, loliai to do to 
 be saved, and it tells Jiov^ to do it. 
 
 12. Because, God has never pointed us to any other 
 rule. 
 
 13. Because, salvation is promised to all who love God 
 and men, and it teaches us how to love them. 
 
 14. Because, salvation is promised to all who obey 
 God's commands, which are contained in the Bible. 
 
 15. Because, its instructions are called a Rule, with 
 the promise of peace and mercy. — Gal. vi, 10. 
 
 16. Because, the Saviours words are there, which to 
 obey is life eternal. 
 
 17. Because, the knowledge of God is there, whom to 
 Ttnoxc is life eternal. 
 
 18. Because, the account of Jesus is there, which to 
 believe is life eternal. 
 
 19. Because, it contains the Scriptures^ loMch are 
 able to make vs wise unto salvation. 
 
 20. Because, those Scriptures are given, that we rna.y 
 he thoroug?tly furnished unto all good icorJcs. 
 
 21. Because, they are given, that we may he perfect; 
 which is all any one can desire. 
 
 22. Because, it contains the Law of the Lord which is 
 perfect, converting the soul. — Ps. xiv, 7. 
 
 23. Because, it contains the testimony of the Lord, 
 which is sure, making wise the simple. 
 
 24. Because, God declares that He has done all for us 
 that he could : but if other rules were necessary he could 
 have made them. 
 
 25. Because, it is the only book that all Christians 
 agree in, or can ever be united under. 
 
 26. Because, whether they love or hate each other, 
 agree or disagree, they all acknowledge its authority. 
 
 27. Because, eveiy sin is a violation of the Bible, and 
 every act of holiness is conformable to it. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 345 
 
 28. Because, no one considers an appeal to the Bible 
 in justification of any immorality, as either candid or 
 honest. 
 
 29. Because, adherence to it, forms a universal bro- 
 therhood, united in the bonds of heaven. 
 
 30. Because, all other rules being the landmarks of 
 sects, are necessarily schismatical. * 
 
 31. Because, it was the guide of all the saints whose 
 names it records, who are now in heaven. 
 
 32. Because, it contains sermons by the Son of God, 
 "which he said, if we obeyed, we should live. 
 
 33. Because it contains rules of prayer, by which, if 
 we are guided, answers of peace and mercy are promised. 
 
 34. Because, those who are not satisfied with it can 
 not agree upon any other, but multiply rales indefinitely. 
 
 35. Because, no other rule has a source that wall com- 
 mand the respect of mankind. 
 
 36. Because, the nearer that men approach to heaven, 
 the better they understand and love their Bibles. 
 
 37. Because, tlie nearer men approach to heaven the 
 less they think of other rules. 
 
 38. Because, it is the only rule for which we can claim 
 the promise: it shall not pass away. 
 
 3y. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
 manded to preach. 
 
 40. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
 manded to search. 
 
 41. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
 manded to keep. 
 
 42. Because, it is the only rule that we are com- 
 manded to hold fast. 
 
 43. Because, it contains the only faith that we are 
 commanded to contend for. 
 
 44. Because, it is the only rule which all acknowledge 
 perfect. 
 
 45. Because, it is the rule by which all reformers pro- 
 fess to be guided. 
 
 46. Because, it is the only rule that all will blush to 
 violate. 
 
346 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 47. Because, it is tlie only rule to which all Christians 
 appeal. 
 
 48. Because, it is the only rule that has the sanction 
 of the apostolic Church. 
 
 49. Because, it is the only rule that embraces the 
 whole revelation of God. 
 
 50. i3ecause, it contains all of God's will concerning 
 us ; and none other does. 
 
 51. Because, it is the only rule that contains the whole 
 of the Christian religion. 
 
 52. Because, there are some men in all denominations 
 who despise human Disciplines, and others who only 
 receive them in part, as my brother. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Twenty-third reply: 
 
 I will read to you the definition of Constitution, as 
 given by Webster: "The act of constituting, enacting, 
 establishing, or appointing. The state of being; that 
 form of being, or peculiar structure and connection of 
 parts, which makes or characterizes a system or body. 
 Hence, the particular frame or temperament of the hu- 
 man body is called its Constitution. The frame, or tem- 
 per of mind, affections, or passions ; the established form 
 of government in a state, kingdom, or country ; a sys- 
 tem of fundamental rules, principles, and ordinances for 
 the government of a state or nation. A particular law, 
 ordinance, or regulation, made by the authority of any 
 superior, civil, or ecclesiastical. A system of fundamen- 
 tal principles for the government of rational and social 
 beings." 
 
 I will now read Webster's definition of "Discipline:'' 
 " To instruct, or educate ; to inform the mind; to pre- 
 pare by instructing in correct principles and habits ; to 
 instruct and govern ; to teach rules and practice, and 
 accustom to order and subordination; to correct; to 
 chastise ; to punish; to execute the laws of the Church 
 on offenders, with a view to bring them to repentance 
 and reformation of life ; to advance and prepare by in 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 34T 
 
 struction." "\yith these references I shall now invite 
 your attention to Mosheim. I read from page 39, " Such 
 was tlie Constitution of the Cimrch in its infancy, when 
 its assemblies were neither numerous nor splendid." 
 
 " I now state that not one single passage, quoted by my 
 friend, has any more bearing upon this subject, than it 
 has upon the condition of any other planet than this one. 
 lie is here to prove that the Word of God prohibits the 
 Churcli from making a Constitution for her government. 
 I have not yet met with that prohibition. Yet he stands 
 up here and insists that he has not been answered. I 
 assert that there is not one of his texts that has the 
 slightest possible bearing upon the subject; hence, it was 
 a waste of words, and his attempt to prove that the Bible 
 proliibits the making a Constitution, has been a failure. 
 He says, I can not tell the difference between tweedledum 
 and tweedledee. Thank you, brother, for your high 
 opinion. 
 
 He says, the Deer Creek Conference which I quoted, 
 is not very good authority. Oh ! he shakes his head ; 
 I don't know but he might shake the balance of his hair 
 off. I know my authority, though I know it is like ex- 
 tracting his teeth when I meet him upon his own ground, 
 — the records of their own Conference. He tells you that 
 this is only the record of the proceedings of that Confer- 
 ence ; but this Conference pretends to act under the Dis- 
 cipline of their Church. My brother refers to legislative 
 bodies, and says, that the records of their proceedings 
 are not the statutes of their Constitutions ; but that one 
 might refer to the Constitution to know whether any par- 
 ticular act was legal or not, or whether it was according 
 to the Constitution. He says, that their Constitution is the 
 Bible ; but he must point out how they appoint a presi- 
 dent or a secretary. My brother says, that if our Dis- 
 cipline differs from the Bible, it annuls the Constitution. 
 Kow 1 dety him to point out a single article in oi)i)03ition 
 to the Word of God. He says, that all Church trials shall 
 be conducted on Gospel principles ; and that all offences 
 
348 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 condemned by the Word of God, as bein^ sufficient to 
 exclude a person from tlie kingdom of grace and gloiy, 
 shall subject ministers, preachers, and members to expul- 
 sion from the Church." The brother can not find a sin- 
 gle reference to the Book of Discipline, which says that 
 any one can be expelled for violating the laws of the 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
 I wish to invite your attention on the word " Church." 
 I quote first from Dr. Buck : 
 
 The Greek word, ixxxr^ia, denotes an assembly met 
 about business, whether lawi'ul or unlawful." — Dr. Buck 
 on Church. 
 
 So it is Dr. Buck against Dr. Summerbcll. Dr. 
 Watson says : 
 
 The Greek word, ixxxr^oia^ so rendered, denotes an 
 assembly met about business, whether spiritual or tem- 
 poral. — Acts xix, 52-59:" Dr. Watson on Church. 
 
 So it is Dr. Watson against Dr. Summerbell ; yet, 
 my brother sa^'s it is not so. I have never been dubbed 
 with that title, and I have no disposition for the honor. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the notice in the ^^Gos- 
 jpel Herald^' the organ of the Christians, announcing 
 that " the next Convention of the Christian Denomina- 
 tion will meet in Cincinnati, and that so and so is Presi- 
 dent," <fcc. I want the chapter and vei-se for this, from 
 his Discipline, or Bible, for I never found it in mine. 
 He quotes from the Acts, that the Church numbered a 
 hundred and twenty, and therefore assumes that it is 
 right to have a book in which to make a record. If 
 Dr. Summerbell is right, in saying that we have no 
 right to make a Constitution and Discipline, then lie is 
 wrong, in saying that they have a right to keep such a 
 book as the Deer Creek Eecords, and a clerk to make 
 the entries. 
 
 Dr. Clarke says that the name, Ciiristian, was given by 
 Divine authorit3\ I never questioned that it was so, but 
 I asserted that the Church existed before it was so named, 
 and that it received different names previous to this. 
 
COTTFTTTUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 349 
 
 My brother grows exceedingly eloquent about the rise 
 of the Church, and its progress over the classic plains. 
 But what has this to do with the proposition, tliat the 
 Church has no right, since the Apostolic age, to make 
 rules for her governm-ent. He wishes to know, if when 
 crossing Jordan, I expect to take my Discipline with 
 me, and intimates that we may take the Bible w^ith us. 
 It is something like the preacher who said, he conld tell 
 the secrets of the three heavens. He says, the Church 
 has no right to make Constitutions and Disciplines; 
 yet I will turn to the page, and show him how a Presi- 
 dent and Secretary have to be elected. I call your atten- 
 tion to another record : " Resolved^ That a Committee 
 
 of three be appointed, to wait on Elders , and 
 
 effect an adjustment of the differences existing between 
 them." Here, you see, that their acts are to be regarded 
 as authoritative. A resolution was offered and received, 
 that the candidates for the ministry should be examined 
 as to their qualifications." Here, you see, the candidates 
 are to be examined on doctrinal questions. When they 
 present themselves for ordination, a committee is ap- 
 pointed to examine into their views on cardinal points. 
 I want chapter and verse, as authority for such a com- 
 mittee to examine a candidate. Here is something which 
 draws verv near to a Creed. Who, pray, are to be the 
 judges of the doctrinal views, if the right of private 
 judgment is to be maintained, as my brother would have 
 it? I want to know from his Discipline, how they take 
 this privilege ! Then he reads the words of our Saviour, 
 
 Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 
 eternal life," and over this great injunction of our divine 
 Master, he grows very eloquent. He says that Jesus 
 does not say. Search the Discipline. Who ever claimed 
 to give tliat authority to the Discipline, which we claim 
 for the Word of God ? It is a provisional means on the 
 part of the Church, which can not be done without, and 
 I have proved from this book of the Deer Creek Confer- 
 ence, that it is with them. 
 
350 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Then be submits sonic twenty propositions, which I 
 shall pass over ver\' briefly, for not a single one of them 
 Las the slightest tendency to come within gnnshot of the 
 proposition under discussion, which relates to the right of 
 the Church to. make Rules and Disciplines. He talks 
 about our ''little book*' of Discipline, but his book is 
 very much larger than ours, ^ow I will take the big 
 book and put i^ on my siioulder ; here it is, and I set one 
 ofl' against the other. When my brother is about to close 
 his address, he thinks of offering up a prayer that God 
 will hasten tlie day when all Disciplines shall be destroyed, 
 and he lifts his soul in pious ejaculations before God, 
 praying that it may be so. But you will wear out, my 
 brother, before your prayers will be answered, for it 
 existed in the Church in its infancy, and my friend here, 
 in the nineteenth century, is unable to get along without 
 it. On Sabbath last, when my brother admitted the 
 young man as a member of his Church, he put the 
 Bible into his hand and said, Do you receive this as 
 your only rule of faith and practice V and on his 
 assenting, he was received into the fellowsliip of the 
 Church. This is all right, but I want the chapter and 
 verse for putting the Bible into his hands. I think I 
 have a right to complain, when he arraigns othei*s for 
 doing that which he does himself. He complains, that 
 we subject new members to a probationary term of six 
 months. This is needful, to ascertain if the sheepskin 
 conceals a wolf; if it does, we pass them over to those 
 who like to have them. 
 
 The great principles of Church government recognized 
 by the Church of God in all ages, will live as long as 
 the Church lasts — I will say, as long as time lasts ; for 
 God will in all times open the ears of his true Church to 
 Discipline, and train them in all that appertains to the 
 faithful observance of the internal and external observa- 
 tions of their religious life. Discipline will live, sir, 
 nevertheless, when he prays for its destruction, let him 
 pray in faith ; and he had better try and muster all his 
 faith, when he prays upon this subject. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 351 
 
 Now it is my practice, when I think my people in 
 error, always to make clean the inside of my own dwell- 
 ing, that the people with w^iom I live, may stand 
 reproved. 
 
 Mb. Summerbell's Twenty-fourth address : 
 
 I presume that the intelligent part of this congrega- 
 tion, will easily decide whether the fact, that the Deer 
 Creek Conference keep Minutes of their annual meetings, 
 is a sufficient warrant for the Church of God in all ages, 
 to make Constitutions and Disciplines. Webster defines 
 a Constitution to be a system of fundamental rules or 
 principles of government ; but is not the Bible a funda- 
 mental law? which then is the Constitution? But this 
 little book says on the title-page, ''Constitution of the 
 Methodist Protestant Church according to that, it is 
 the fundamental law, with which all other laws must be 
 made to agree, or they are null and void ; hence, if the 
 Bible conflicts with this little book, the Bible itself is, so 
 far, null and void, for this is the Constitution. And such 
 is the case. The Bible tells us that we are all brethren ; 
 but this makes it null and void, and deprives the colored 
 man of his rights. Tliis human Constitution, substituted 
 by men, instead of the divine Constitution given by God, 
 embraces both Discipline and Articles of Religion; 
 hence, is a law both of faith and government. What 
 right have men thus to legislate for Jesus Christ ? Who 
 gave them authority to dictate Articles of Eeligion, con- 
 trary to the higher teachings of the Bible? My brother 
 complains of my exposing the little book. If it grieves 
 him, I am sorry : yet, if he is ashamed of the book, I am 
 glad. If he does not like to have it examined, he may 
 have it and take it away. It cost me eighteen cents, and 
 he may have it for half-price, and burn it if he chooses. 
 These human Creeds have had their day, and their influ- 
 ence is passing away — and so it should. If they are 
 enforced, they are tyrannical^ and cause divisions ; if 
 they are not, they are dece;ptiv6 — professing that the 
 
852 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Chnrcli members are governed by the Discipline, when 
 they are not. On Snn lay last, he rcqncsted all to leave 
 his Church who did not believe his Discipline. But if 
 they do, brotlier Flood nmst leave, for he publicly acknow- 
 ledged that he did not believe it at all. He is evidently 
 ashamed of it. for he will not allow me to call it a 
 Creed. But why then does he not abandon it ? He wants 
 our authority tor appointing a Convention in Cincinnati. 
 I answer, the same which he has for attending this debate. 
 My brother stamps the pulpit, but he will have to stamp 
 much louder, before the peo}>le will believe all that he 
 has advanced. He asks, if tlieir Constitution expels any 
 one for simply violating the Discipline? In ansvrer, see 
 page 44, where "Ministers can not be received, unless 
 they approve of the Constitution and Discipline, and are 
 willing to obey it;" 3^et my brother only approves of a 
 part of it. It requires candidates for the ministry to read 
 Clarke, Fletcher, Wesley, and others, whose names fill 
 two pages or more. No matter how averse to the doc- 
 trine of those men, or how well road in the Bible, ho 
 must read, and of course, be able to undergo an exami- 
 nation in these authors before he can preach. But the 
 Bible makes no such requirements. Now will you reject 
 the Constitution, my brother ? 
 Mr. Flood. — No. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell. — He promised to reject it if it was 
 contrary to the Word of God ; and I hope, through 
 divine grace, he will yet see the folly of it, and give it 
 up. He says that Churchy signifies a promiscuous assem- 
 bly, good or bad— a secular body — and quotes Buck and 
 Watson to prove it — who think it a translation of £xx•,.r^aln, 
 Do you believe, on this human authority, that the Church 
 is a mere promiscuous assembly of good men or sinners, 
 assembled in a theater or anywhere else ? My brother 
 does not believe it. No one believes it. The word Church, 
 is the Greek w^ord xv^iaxb^ Anglicized — the same as bap- 
 tism, bishop, &c., and signifies, the Lord' 8. in the posses- 
 sive case ; hence, no sinner can be of the Gimrch proper. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 353 
 
 It is not a translation of ixxxr-Aa that word not being 
 translated at all. King James, under whom the transla- 
 tion was made, gave especial orders that well-known 
 ecclesiastical terms should not be changed or translated ; 
 tlierefore. Church, the same in a varied orthography as 
 Kiik. from xvptazo?, was substituted lor tx-x->.r(sia. He fre- 
 quently calls me by various names lor a little pleasantry, 
 but I have no reason to complain ; could I expect that he 
 would not nickname me, when he nicknames his God ? — 
 calling him Trinity, a name which the mouth of the Lord 
 has never named. lie who will take such liberties with 
 his Go 1. will hardly refrain taking them with an oppo- 
 nent. But I warn my friend, that this does not prove the 
 riirht of the Church to make Constitutions and Disciplines 
 for the government of Gol's people. He brings forward 
 one of our Conference Minute books, but with ail his skill, 
 lie has neither found in it a human Constitution for the 
 Church, nor anything approbating one. But he found 
 something. Yes! He found that on the application of a 
 candidate for admission to the ministry, we examined the 
 applicant with regard to his qualifications; and so he 
 thinks that we must have a human Constitution. Xot at 
 all, my brother. This is required by the Divine Constitu- 
 tion. The apostle says, " Lay hands suddenly on no man, 
 but commit these things to faithful men. who shall be 
 able to teach others." What he has made of the book, 
 save a little fun. you can judge. Xor can you fail to see 
 the diflference between his fuss and fun, and the arguments 
 which I have produced, proving that the Church has no 
 right to make her own Constifution. The question is, 
 has God given this right? not, can we prove it by infer- 
 ence! or from the Deer Creek Conference! Has my 
 brother quoted one solitary text to show that this right 
 has been given ? I have never witnessed a more entire 
 failure ; yet he assumes the right to legislate for heaven, 
 and govern all God's children — to take the throne of 
 government from the Lord Jesus Christ, and to make 
 Constitutions for his followers. His claims sm'pass those 
 30 
 
354 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 of the Czar of Russia, and when we demand the docu- 
 ments to prove his authority, he goes to the Deer Creek 
 Conference, and — and fails to find them. He claims a 
 right infinitely higher than that of making political Cun- 
 Btitutions for all the nations under heaven, and is satisfied 
 with the authority of a rais representation of the Minutes 
 of a Conference ! The only Constitution of the primi- 
 tive Church was the Holy'Blble, with the divine religion 
 of Jesus Christ written in the hearts of men, as proved 
 by my brother's own quotation from Mosheim. And 
 such should be the only Constitution now, and must be, 
 before the peace of Zion can be restored. 
 
 I will now be forced to sum up, and close this discus- 
 sion, though I have presented but a small part of the 
 matter I had prepared. Forty-eight logical reasons re- 
 main unofiered; yet, enough has been said, and suflicient 
 authority given both from Scripture and reason, to prove 
 that the Church has no authority to dictate her own 
 Constitution and Discipline. 
 
 1st. I have shown that my brother's Discipline itself, 
 declares, that the Word of God is the only rule of faith 
 and practice. Hence, the Church has no right to make 
 any other. 
 
 2d. That it gives the Church a name, "Methodist 
 Protestant Church," which has not the Divine sanction. 
 
 3d. That it deprives preachers of advancement, unless 
 they approve of it. 
 
 4th. That it requires more of its preachers, than the 
 Bible does. Page 134. 
 
 5th. That it deprives' the genuine convert of full fel- 
 lowship, under six months. 
 
 6th. -Tiiat it prefers the children of their own members, 
 to religious advantages, before others, equally good. 
 
 Tth. Tiiat it enjofns rites not found in the Word of 
 God. 
 
 Sth. That it says, that we are justified by faith oply, 
 contrary to the apostle, who says that we are not justified 
 hy faith only. — James ii. 24. 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 855 
 
 9th. I have sliown, that if itjs right to make a Con 
 stitntioD, then, it is sin to resist it and reject it. 
 
 10th. That this right to make it, must belong to the 
 majority ; but my brother has resisted the majority. 
 Protestants have rejected the Roman Catholic riglit ; the 
 Methodist Episcopal Chui'cli has resisted the Protestant 
 Episcopal Ciiurch, and the Protestant Methodist Church 
 has resisted the Methodist Episcopal Church, proving 
 that he, in his own case, denies this authority of the 
 Church to make Constitutions for Ms government. 
 
 11th. That his Constitution is a fundamental law, 
 embracing .both Articles of Peligion and Discipline. 
 Kow, if the Church has a right to make these Articles 
 of Religion^ then, it is sin to resist that authority, or to 
 reject that Creed, which will turn us all over again to the 
 Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 12th. I have shown, by very many texts, that the 
 Bible contains all-sufficient rules for Discipline or Con- 
 stitution ; and that it is in vain, to worship God, teaching 
 for doctrines, the commandments of men. 
 
 13th. I have the brothers own admission, that there 
 can be no other fundamental law, except the Bible ; but 
 a Constitution is a fundamental law — hence, it is wrong 
 to make a Constitution. 
 
 14th. 1 have proved that the making of a Constitution, 
 is a sovereign act, requiring sovereign authority ; but 
 that Christians being subjects, and not sovereigns, they 
 can possess no such authority, unless it has been dele- 
 gated by Christ ; but my brother has found no one text^ 
 which gives such authority to the Church. 
 
 15th. I have proved by the Bible, that God requires 
 not of us to legislate^ and to make laws ; but to submit 
 to, and to obey laws. 
 
 16th. Christ being King, and having, as I have proved, 
 and my brothers admission confirms, given us the Bible 
 as our Constitution, it is rebellion against his govern- 
 ment, in us, to make a Constitution, and attempt to legis- 
 late for Christ. 
 
856 
 
 Discrssiox ON 
 
 ITth. Acrain, I have proved that man not only lacljs 
 the authority, but the ability to legislate for God's people ; 
 since he fully understands neither the mysteries of reli- 
 gion, nor the nature of man. To fear God and keep 
 bis commandments, is the whole duty of man ; but God 
 has neither required of us to make laws and legislate for 
 his kingdom, nor yet to obey the laws which others 
 make. I challenge my brother to bring forward any 
 authority for making laws to govern God's Ciiurch. 
 
 ISth. It is said that Jesus shall i-eign ; but how shall 
 be reign, if others make the laws without his approba- 
 tion ? "We pray that God's kingdom may come, and that 
 his will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven ; but 
 have they these little human Constitutions to form Metho- 
 dists. Presbyterians. <fec.. of the inhabitants of heaven ? 
 
 19th. Christ is our King, and to him we should sub- 
 mit, and not rebel against his government, and make 
 new Constitutions, and divide his children, bringing 
 some under this Constitution, and some under that, thus 
 rending the Church of Christ. 
 
 20th^ Those who follow such Constitutions, are of 
 necessity, separated from those who do not. And of 
 those who thus create parties, and build up sects, the 
 apostle says : "J/a/'A* them which cause divisions, and 
 avoid them." Marie tTiem ! and ''reject the heretic after 
 the first and second admonition." Brethren, wi^ile we 
 cherish a kindly feeling toward those in error, we must 
 bear our united testimony against the en'or itself, and 
 put these things from amongst us. I have presented only 
 a small jxu-tion of the arguments which I have prepared, 
 against Creed and Constitution making ; but these are 
 enough. He has quoted barely a single passage of 
 Scripture on his sicie, while I have cited you to very 
 many condemning the practice, and proving the all-suf- 
 ficiency of the Word of God. He answers these texts by 
 the very short method of saying : '* ^VIly they have 
 nothing to do with the subject:'' Of course not I What 
 would I quote them for, or he complain of them, if they 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 857 
 
 had ? The Minutes of tlie Deer Creek Conference (a 
 body, I had hardly heard of,) is the only authority to 
 him. From their Minutes, he finds abundant authority 
 to make Creeds and Constitutions for God's Church. 
 This, however, nmst be left for your decision. And here 
 I close. To this large and attentive Congregation, I 
 return my sincere thanks for the patience with which 
 you have listened to us from day to day. If we have 
 spoken any unchristian word, may that God, whose 
 mercy we have heretofore shared, yet forgive and pardon 
 us. To the gentlemen Moderators, and our kind friends, 
 the reporters, I also return my sincere thanks for the 
 faithful performance of their duties. And may we all 
 meet, when we have passed from the shores of time, 
 where human Creeds are unnamed and unknown, and 
 God in Christ, without a rival, reigns. Amen. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Twenty-fourth reply : 
 
 Mr. Summerbell sets out by inquiring, are there two 
 fundamental laws. He assumes, that the Methodist 
 Protestant Constitution is the fundamental law, and if 
 this be so, the Bible can not be fundamental. I have 
 quoted from our fundamental law, if he so calls it, of the 
 Methodist Protestant Discipline, tliat no rule was author- 
 ized to be passed, contravening the law of God in any 
 sense ; hence, our Constitution and Book of Discipline are 
 founded upon God's Word. The business of my brother 
 here, is to prove that it is not so, and he says he has pre- 
 sented a hundred and fifty proofs, drawn from Scripture 
 and reason. O, how logically my brother has reasoned! 
 I am perfectly willing that the report should show the 
 strength of his reasoning. He advises you that a very 
 large amount of testimony is still reserved, and that he 
 has not emptied his barrel. I am sorry for this, since he 
 has not yet presented a single argument nor evidence 
 from God's Word, that the Church is prohibited, since 
 the Apostolic age, from making a Discipline for the gov- 
 oi-nment of the Church. 
 
358 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 He alludes to the Articles of Religion and Discipline 
 in the book, and turninf^ round, asks if I am not ashamed 
 of them. I say, no ! it has been my business to defend 
 them. He then refers to a remark 1 made on the Sablxith, 
 that I invited those to leave the Church, who did not 
 agree with our Discipline. I have no idea, that those 
 in this community wlio are Methodist Protestants, will 
 be likely to become anything else. My brother professes 
 to be opposed to levity, yet once he laughed himself, when 
 I could not see any one eke laugh with him. lie asks 
 where we get authority for the course of reading laid 
 down as essential for those preparing for the ministry. 
 I not only agree with this requirement, but I should not 
 object to increase the list, and perhaps this discussion, if 
 it should be given to the workl. might be added and be 
 found serviceable in informing those who come hereafter, 
 that my brother has a Discipline — that he has the very 
 thing he condenms in others. I ask him, where he finds 
 authority for forming a Ministerial association ? Has he 
 any ? No ! Where is his authority lor an Annual Con- 
 vention ? Nowhere. lie asks me, where is my authority 
 for attending this debate. I am commanded to teach the 
 truth, and therefore I am here. I tliank God, it is my 
 privilege to expose heresy, wherever it may appear. He 
 directs your attention to the word Church, and says my 
 definition is not admissible ; but I am perfectly willing to 
 leave it to such authorities as Drs. Watson and Buck, 
 who show that the word is employed to signify a promis- 
 cuous assembly, but that by connnon consent it was 
 applied to religious assemblies ; that it applied to the 
 Church in its local capacity ; to the Church universally ; 
 to the Cliurch militant, and to the Church in its triumph- 
 ant state. The brother complains most grievously of the 
 term Dr., being applied to him. It has been wliispercd 
 in my ear, that he has not been styled Dr. by any insti- 
 tution of learning in the country, but as he arrayed 
 himself against Dr. Clarke, and read from his own 
 pamphlet, I recommend him to the favorable notice of 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 359 
 
 tlie excellent institution in this neighborhood, and to its 
 worthy head, Mr. Horace Mann, for whom I have tlio 
 most profound respect. He refers to the Conference 
 book ; but if he scoffs at his own, no wonder he does at 
 mine. Tliis Conference book is the record of the Chris- 
 tian Association of the Deer Creek district for many years 
 past ; but the truth is out at last, that this so called 
 Cin-istian Churcli has Records and Discipline that can 
 not be found, in what they recognize as their only Dis- 
 cipline; that they have officers in their Church, whose 
 names even can not be found anywhere in the Bible ; yet 
 they tell you this is their only book of Discipline, and I 
 have called upon my brother in vain, to point out 
 chapter and verse. 
 
 He says I have proved nothing, but this assertion 
 arises from an internal consciousness that he has proved 
 nothing. Have 1 not shown you that the word Discipline 
 occurs in the Bible ? and have I not shown, upon the 
 authority of God's Word, that if their ears are to be 
 opened to Discipline, if it is not found in the Bible in 
 the regular form, the Church has to make it ? He has 
 forty-eight reasons which he has not presented, but why 
 has he reserved them ? I suppose he contemplates a 
 paper-war on this subject. He takes great pains to tell 
 the audience I have made an utter failure. Bity that he 
 can not make me sensible of it ; it is the discovery of 
 my distinguished opponent, who is certainly a very 
 remarkable man. He passes a very high eulogy upon 
 the Baptist Church, but they neither agree with him in 
 discipline nor doctrine. All that he has said in com- 
 mendation of that Chi'istian Church I can indorse, and 
 were it necessary, could say much more, for I have known 
 them long and expect to love them to tlie end. He says, 
 I deny the authoi'ity of the Methodist Protestant Church. 
 I never said any such thing, neither here nor anywhere 
 else. I simply said, the Ciiurch has a right to make this 
 Constitution, and if she discovers a possibility of making 
 improvements therein, there is no passage in God's 
 
860 
 
 DISCUSSION OX 
 
 TTord prohibiting her. The Wesleyan Church liad a 
 right to come out of the Church of England, but these 
 are matters of choice, and depend upon tlie judgment of 
 those concerned. I liave shown, that no specific form of 
 government is laid down in the !New Testament. The 
 Church, with her eyes open to this fact, has a right to 
 form such regulations as her judgment a])proves, and no 
 one has a right to stand up and assert that in so doing 
 we overturn the Kingly office of CJirist. 
 
 My brother wants to know, if there is any Discipline 
 in heaven. I answer reverentially, I know nothing on 
 that subject. Our Discipline relates to the Church in its 
 militant, not in its triumphant state. Heaven is a place 
 of order, and the Ciiurch of God should be a place of 
 order, and whenever the Church is denied the privilege 
 of making Rules and Discipline, it can not be a Cluirch 
 of order. 1 have shown from other authorities, that they 
 make Rules; that each individual Church has a Clerk, 
 and have Books of Record, in which to record their 
 transactions ; but there is no specific authority for th.is 
 in the Bible, as to the manner in which it should be 
 done. 
 
 I throw back with all its force, the statement of entire 
 failure ; but I willingly leave it to the intelligence of this 
 audience. 1 invite your attention to the opening speech 
 of my opponent, and whether he has not been wandering 
 from the point ever since. 
 
 I wish you to notice the contrast which exists between 
 our Constitution and Discipline and theirs. Theirs exists 
 in iragments — some printed and some written in a per- 
 fectly confused manner — part here, in this paper relating 
 to the Cincinnati. Convention. 'My brother seems very 
 uneasy about this record, for it shows that they take the 
 liberty of examining candidates on what they consider 
 cardinal points of doctrine. I shall tliank any one who 
 will tell me of a single text he has quoted to demonstrate 
 Lis position, that the Church has no right to make a Con- 
 stitution and Discipline for her government and regula- 
 
CONSTITUTIONS AND DISCIPLINES. 
 
 361 
 
 tion ; at the same time I am desirous that he should show 
 where he gets his Discipline from for all the things I 
 have pointed out. His Discipline is, for the most part, 
 unwritten ; it exists, but it is in the minds of his people, 
 and out of that which is unwritten, they attempt to har- 
 monize the fact, to square with the teachings of the Bible. 
 Our Constitution is here before us ; 1 am not ashamed of 
 it, but am willing to stand up and defend it. But my 
 brother has displayed a great fear of theirs ; he seems 
 as though he would like it to take legs and run away. 
 Our Constitution is founded upon the law of God. It is 
 required, in every particular, to conform thereto ; and if 
 any thing in word or spirit should not accord with the 
 Word of God, it is nugatory — it has no force nor power ; 
 for no law is allowed to be so construed as to contravene 
 the law of God in any sense. Which, then, is most 
 deserving of respect, the Methodist Protestant Book of 
 Discipline, or the imperfect one of the Christians, or, as 
 they are more generally called. New Lights ? Ours is 
 honestly and openly published to the world ; theirs is 
 hidden'^in a corner, concealed in books and papers, pub- 
 lished by their own denomination ; and yet unblushingly 
 they stand up and say we are opposed to all books of 
 Discipline. 
 
 Mr. Summereell. Amen. 
 
 Mr. Flood. He says amen ; I suppose it is an amen 
 of affirmation of tlie argument. Mr. Summerbell says, 
 that is not true. I thank him ; he is very polite. When 
 amen is used it is in a sense of affirmation, and I sup- 
 posed he used it thus. I have made it appear that the 
 Methodist Protestant Church claimed the Bible as the 
 only sufficient rule of Faith and Discipline, and that 
 ail minor Discipline must conform to that. 
 31 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 ON 
 
 HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 PROPOSITION POE, DISCUSSION. 
 
 ** Mankind, through the transgression of Adam, (by which he fell 
 from grace, until redemption was promised by Christ,) are by 
 nature entirely depraved. 
 
 Rev. J. M. Flood afl&rms ; N. Summerbell denies. 
 
 Mr. Flood's First address, and Twenty-iifth speech : 
 
 We enter upon the discussion of the last proposition 
 submitted for investigation at this time, and all will 
 readily admit the great importance of the doctrine in- 
 volved : man's moral depravity in his fallen state. 
 
 First, we remark, man was created in purity . Gen. 
 i, 27, " So God created man in his own image, in the 
 image of God created he him, male and female created 
 he them." Eccles. vii, 29, " Lo! this only have I found, 
 that God hath made man upright, but they have sought 
 out many inventions." 
 
 Second, Ilan lias fallen into sin and ruin. Gen. 
 iii, 17-19, "And unto Adam he said, because thou 
 hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast 
 eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, 
 thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy 
 sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy 
 life; thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to 
 thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field, in the 
 sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return 
 unto the ground, for out of it was thou taken, for dust 
 thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." 
 362 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 363 
 
 Third : We remark that all men^ in tJieir fallen state, 
 are morally depraved. Gen. vi, 11, The earth a] so was 
 corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with vio- 
 lence ; and God looked upon the earth, and behold it 
 was corru])t, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the 
 earth." Job xv, 16, "How much more abominable and 
 filthy is man that drinketh iniquity like water Ps. xiv, 
 1-3, ''The fool hath said in his heart there is no God ; 
 they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there 
 is none that doeth good ; the Lord looked down upon the 
 children of men, to see if there were any that did seek 
 God, they are all gone aside, they are altogether become 
 filthy, there is none that doeth good, no not one;" Rom. 
 iii, 9, 20, " What then ! are we better than they ? Xo, in 
 nowise, for we have before proved both Jews "^and Gen- 
 tiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written, there is 
 none righteous, no not one, there is none that under- 
 standeth, there is none that seeketh after God ; they are 
 all gone out of the way, they are altogether become un- 
 profitable, there is none that d«eth good, no not one ; 
 their throat is an open sepulcher, with their tongues they 
 have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips, 
 their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet 
 are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in 
 their ways, and the way of. peace have they not known, 
 there is no feai* of God before their eyes ; now we know 
 that what things soever the law sayeth, it sayeth to them 
 who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, 
 and all the world may become guilty before God ; there- 
 fore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justi- 
 fied in his sight." Colossians iii, 21, "If there had been 
 a law given which could have given life, verily righteous- 
 ness should have been by the law, but the Scripture hath 
 concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
 Jesus Christ might be given unto them that believe." 
 
 Fourth : Human nature^ in its fallen condition^ is 
 entirely depraved. Gen. vi, 5, "And God saw that the 
 wickedness of man was great in the earth, that every 
 
364 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 imagination of the thoiifrht of his heart was only evil, 
 and that contin^alh^" Ps. v, 9, "For there is no faith- 
 fulness in their mouth, their inward heart is very wicked- 
 ness, their -throat is an open sepulcher. they flatter with 
 their tongue." Rom. vii, IS, "For I know that in me, 
 that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." 1 Cor. ii, 
 
 14, " For the natural man receiveth not the things of 
 the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, nei- 
 ther can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- 
 cerned." 2 Cor. V, 14, " If one died for all, then were 
 all dead." Ephes. ii, 13, "And you hath he quickened 
 •who were dead in trespasses and sins." Eph. ii, 3, 
 "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times 
 past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the 
 flesh and mind, and were by nature the children of 
 wrath, even as others ; that at that time ye were without 
 Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 
 and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no 
 hope, and without God in the world." 
 
 Fifth : We shall inwte attention to the several ways 
 in which this depravity of human nature is evinced. 1st. 
 This depravity is evinced in ojyposition and contradic- 
 tion to God. Job xxi, 14, " Depart from us, for we 
 desire not the knowledge of thy ways." Ps. xxxvi, 1, 
 " The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, 
 there is no fear of God before his eyes." John vii, 7, 
 " The world can not hate you, but me it hateth, because 
 I testify of it that the works thereof are evil." Rom. i, 
 30, " Haters of God." Rom. viii, 7, " Because the car- 
 nal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to 
 the law of God, neither indeed can be." 
 
 Sixth : This depravity is mamifested. in disoledience 
 and insuhordinoAion to the authority of God.. Job xxi, 
 
 15. " What is the Almighty that we should serve him ?" 
 Ps. ii, 3, " Let us break their bands asunder, and cast 
 away their cords from us." Jer. v, 23, " This people 
 hath a revolting, and a rebellious heart, they are revolted 
 and gone." Zach. vii, 11, 1'3, " But they refused to 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 865 
 
 hearken, and pulled away their shoulder, and stopped 
 their cars tliat they should not hear; yea, they made 
 their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear 
 the law, and the words which the Lord hath sent in his 
 spirit by the former prophets." Ps. x, 4, "The wicked, 
 through the pride of his countenance, will not seek for 
 God, God is not in all his thoughts." Is. xxix, 15, " Woe 
 unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the 
 Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, 
 who seeth us, and who knoweth us?" Eph. v, li, 12, 
 "The unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove 
 them ; for it is a shame even to speak of those things 
 which are done of them in secret." Eph. ii, 3, "Among 
 whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in 
 the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh 
 and mind, and were by nature the children of wrath even 
 as others." 
 
 Titus iii, 3, " For we ourselves also were sometimes 
 foolish, disobedient, deceived ; serving divers lusts and 
 pleasures ; living in malice and envy, hateful and hating 
 one another." 
 
 Seventh : TJiis depravity is also sliown in acts of 
 hase ingratitude and cruelty. Psalms xli, 9, " Yea, 
 mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did 
 eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." 
 Psalms Ixxiv, 20, "Have respect unto the Covenant, for 
 the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of 
 cruelty." Isaiah i, 2, " Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O 
 earth, for the Lord hath spoken : I have nourished and 
 brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." 
 
 We remark that this depravity is developed in deceit 
 and hypocrisy. 
 
 Jeremiah xvii, 9, " The heart is deceitful above all 
 things, and desperately wicked : who can know it ?" 
 Eomans i, 29, 30, " Being tilled with all unrighteousness, 
 fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full 
 of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 
 backbiters." 
 
866 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Eighth : We now invite attention to tlie consideration 
 that persons are responsible for actual sins only ^ sins 
 of their own^ not of others. Deuteronomy xxiv, 10, 
 ''The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
 neither shall the children be put to death for fathers ; 
 every man shall be put to death for his own sin." 
 Ezekiel xviii, 2, " "What mean ye that ye use this proverb 
 concerning the land of Israel, saying the fathers have 
 eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on 
 edge V Twentietli verse, " The soul that sinneth it shall 
 die ; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father ; 
 neither shall the father bear iniquity for the son. The 
 righteousness of the righteous shall be upon hiui ; and 
 the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Jer. 
 xxxi, 30, " Every one shall die for his own iniquity ; 
 every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be 
 set on edge : they are only responsible for actual sins ; yet 
 this inclination to evil and corruption, is early mani- 
 fested in the life." Job xi, 12, "For vain man would 
 be wise, though man be born like a wild ass or colt. 
 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not 
 one." Job xv, 14, " What is man that he should be 
 clean ? and he that is born of a woman, that he should 
 be righteous?" Psalm li, 5, "Behold I was shapen in 
 iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 
 Iviii, 3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb ; they 
 go astray as soon' as they be born, speaking lies." Pro- 
 verbs xxii, 15, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of the 
 child." Isaiah xlviii, 8, "I knew that thou didst deal 
 very treacherously, and w^ast called a transgressor from 
 the womb." 
 
 We now invite attention to some consequences which 
 must necessarily result from the doctrine of partial de- 
 pravity. 1. If any part of man is not in his fallen 
 state depraved, that part stands in no need of redemption 
 by Christ, and is not redeemed. This is a consequence 
 necessarily following the doctrine of partial depravity. 
 
 2. If that part of man's nature, in his fallen condition, 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 36T 
 
 not depraved, obtains heaven, it obtains it of right, and 
 not by the atonement made by our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 it obtains it upon the ground of the maintenance of 
 innocence in the sight of God, and is not dependent upon 
 what Christ has done for it. I shall leave ray opponent 
 to point out what special part of human nature, in its 
 fallen condition, is not depraved, what part does not 
 stand in need of the redeeming efficacy of Christ's 
 blood. 
 
 3. There is another circumstance following this doc- 
 trine, if on such ground it enters heaven, whether soul or 
 body, or part of both, it can not take part in the song of 
 those who have washed their robes in the blood of the 
 Lamb; there would be a discordant song — the whole 
 man could not unite in that song. K the soul is not de- 
 praved as a consequence of sin, or if the body be not 
 depraved, or if a portion of either be not depraved, there 
 can be no praise Ho him, who has not washed them in 
 his blood. This we regard as conclusively disproving the 
 doctrine of partial depravity. There are other Scriptural 
 evidences, bearing upon this subject, of entire depravity 
 of the human nature. 
 
 Kow, when all have fully before them the subject we 
 are discussing, we shall read the definition of the word 
 depravity from Webster: "Depravity, a vitiated state 
 of the heart, corruption of moral principles, destitution 
 of moral principles." He defines depravity to be a 
 vitiated state of tiie heart, corruption of moral principles, 
 destitution of holiness, or good principles. Here, then, 
 you will discover the ground of difl'erence that exists 
 between me and my opponent, in the investigation of 
 this subject ; we consider human nature in its fallen state, 
 to be depraved — entirely so. The whole race of man, as 
 a consequence of original transgression, is depraved in 
 all its parts ; the relation of infants, however, is not the 
 relation sustained by actual transgressors, though they 
 inherit an entirely depraved nature, as the progeny of 
 an entirely depraved parentage. Yet, infanta are passive 
 
368 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 in the fall, and are passive in the redemption by Christ; 
 thej can not possibly be the subjects oi law ; therefore, 
 they are unconditionally saved in Jesus Christ. 
 
 Romans iv, 15, AYhere there is no law, there is no 
 transgression." Romans v, 13, " For until the law, sin 
 was in the world ; but sin is not imputed where there is 
 no law." Again; "he reckoned all under sin, that he 
 might have mercy on all." In this state, infancy stands 
 justified by an act of God. Tlie infant in Jesus Christ 
 is redeemed, and can not be considered as guilty before 
 God. It was from this fact that Jesus Christ made an 
 example of infant children, when he took them in his 
 arms and blessed them ; and when he took a little child 
 and placed it in the midst, and said, Except a man be 
 converted, and become as a little child, he can not see 
 the kingdom of God." 
 
 What, then, is it that entirely depraves human nature ? 
 It is sin — the violation of God's law. 'A single voluntary 
 transgression committed, taints, corrupts, pollutes, de- 
 praves human nature, in all its parts, and, of course, 
 covers the whole ground, and entirely depraves all his 
 nature. This sin is represented, in some passages I 
 have quoted, as possessing a most deadly character; the 
 poison of asps is under their lips. You may take a glass 
 of water — pure sparkling water — and just drop a single 
 grain of arsenic into that water, and what part is not 
 corrupt and depraved ? The very thing is poison. By 
 a chemical analysis this poisonous substance may be 
 extracted, yet there is no evidence but that, in the de- 
 praved condition, it was depraved in all its parts ; the 
 poison was equally diflused in every particle of that glass 
 of water. If sin be poison, it diiiuses itself through the 
 whole man. 
 
 Here, then, the position is clearly maintained : 
 First, That human nature is fallen in its original head : 
 Second, That it fell from grace in this condition, prior 
 to the promise made: Gen. iii, 15, "And I will put 
 enmity between thee and the woman, and betw^een thy 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 869 
 
 seed RDd her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
 shalt bruise his heel." 
 
 What was the condition of man, in his original state ? 
 Was it a state of condemnation ? Had he not violated 
 the law to which he was held responsible ? Did he not 
 rest under the sentence of condemnation ? Did he not 
 die in the very period of eating thereof? For God de- 
 clared, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely 
 die." 
 
 This death, Adam experienced in the separation of 
 God from his soul. That separation took place immedi- 
 ately on his transgression ; the evidence of it, we have in 
 his conduct in attempting t<3 conceal himself in the trees 
 of the garden. He felt himself to be a guilty rebel in the 
 eight of heaven. A greater evidence of deep depravity, 
 BVid of a want of consciousness of grace, or favor, than 
 nis desire to hide from the Almighty, could not be. It 
 s well known, that when fear exists, there is no disposi- 
 non to avoid the presence of those for whom friendship 
 IS entertained. But Adam knew he had violated the law 
 of God, and hence, that God whom he had recognized as 
 nis God — a God of infinite love, and who communed 
 with him, had now become to him an object of terror, 
 and he hides himself as one fleeing from the hand of an 
 enemy. 
 
 He was lord of the lower creation, and sat at the head of 
 God's creatures, and was in rank and dignity made a little 
 lower than the angels. iSJ^ow, the crown had fallen from 
 •his head, the glory had departed, and we contemplate 
 him in his eclipsed glory ; the sunlight of heaven was 
 withdrawn, and the darkness of moral night had fallen 
 upon him, and he was induced to flee from the sight of 
 Jehovah. For it is a natural result, invariably, that 
 wherein appears a natural likeness to another object, it will 
 seek aflinity, or association with it, and shun its opposite ; 
 and it is particularly so in a moral sense. God was pre- 
 viously the source of his delight — now he is the source of 
 his dread ; formerly the source of his enjoyment — now the 
 
870 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 source of his anguish. He felt it was against God he had 
 sinned, and must have realized the force of the sentiment, 
 ''Against thee, and thee onh% have I sinned." In this 
 condition, we must consider him as fallen from grace, 
 but he was redeemed, prospectively, and the merit of 
 redemption was to be received, on the condition of looking 
 forward to its fulfillment by faitli. You will perceive, that 
 it has been my purpose to approach the subject directly, 
 and no one will presume to question, that I have taken 
 the position upon the merits of the subject involved, and 
 have presented passages, chapter, and verse, calculated 
 to sustain the several positions assumed. My position is 
 sustained by the most leavne^l and respectable authors in 
 Christendom, that the consequence of the fall and trans- 
 gression of man is. that humanity, in its fallen condition, 
 is entirely depraved : it is so with regard to all persons, 
 as actual transgressors ; it is applicable to every individ- 
 ual, where a sin is committed against God intentionally. 
 
 Mk Summerbell's First reply and Twenty-fifth speech : 
 
 I am very much pleased with my brother's speech, the 
 most of which I believe as firmly as he. I hope that he 
 will be as well pleased with mine. His argument on the 
 tumbler of water, was very well done. The water was 
 all tainted ; hut its natm^e was not destroyed ! The 
 poison could be extracted by the chemist, and the water 
 would remain in its original nature. The mixture of one 
 thing with another, does not irrecoverably destroy the 
 nature of the thing so compounded. As far as sii^ 
 goes, it pollutes our nature ; no farther. He says that 
 God said to Adam, " In the day that thou eatest thereof 
 thou shalt surely die," and that Adam lost the image of 
 God, and died a moral death that day. 1 think not. If 
 he refers to the marginal reading, he will find it ren- 
 dered, '''dying thou shalt die^^ as it is in the original, 
 Din n Di n, wadh temutlt. I deny that humanity became 
 totally depraved in its nature, and lost the image of God 
 there. James says, iii, 9, (and James is good authority,) 
 
HUMAX DEPRAVITY. 
 
 371 
 
 "The tongue is an unruly evil, therewith bless we God, 
 even the Fatlier, and therewith curse we men, which 
 are made after the similitude of GodP Xow, is James, 
 or my brother, right ? He thinks that one transgression 
 will make a man totally depraved. Then, you are all 
 totally depraved, here, this morning, and there is nothing 
 good about you. For this total depravity includes the 
 whole nature. No matter when you were converted, if 
 you have committed any sin since, you are now totally 
 depraved, and can do no good thing, for like begets like. 
 Such is my brother's argument, that the commission of 
 a sin, however small, ren-ders you totally depraved in 
 your nature — as depraved as Satan ! It is getting very 
 late in the day to make people believe this. He speaks 
 of humanity in its redeemed condition ; but is man, in 
 this condition, more innocent than when he was an infant 
 babe ? Jesus says, " Except a man be converted, and 
 become as a little child, he shall not enter into the king- 
 dom of heaven." Yet, my brother thinks that the infant 
 is totally depraved in its nature. 
 
 He says, that he believes in the salvation of infants ; 
 but upon what ground, if he deny their innocence ? There 
 is no jpromise^ or hope, held out in the Bible, which is not 
 predicated upon their innocence. Jesus says, " Sutler 
 little children to come unto me,yb/' of sucli is the king- 
 dom of heaven." What ! totally depraved persons in 
 the kingdom of heaven ? 
 
 I am asked what part of human nature is not totally 
 depraved. I answer, no part is ! Reason still exists in 
 man ; love, natural affection, and desires for good are 
 there. He says, if there is any part of our nature that is 
 not totally depraved, then we cannot experience salva- 
 tion in Christ. But I think that Christ saves us ; if he 
 saves us from whatever dej^ravity or malady we have. 
 If Christ heals a man of that disease which he has, he 
 saves the man. It is not necessary that every person 
 should have totally perished, in order to experience sal- 
 vation. 
 
872 
 
 DISCUSSIOX ON 
 
 He thinks that man is total]* depraved, because the 
 wicked, through the depravity of their hearts, will not 
 seek after God ; yet, they are commanded by the Word 
 of God, to seek after God. And, though far too few 
 do seek after God, yet does not my brother preach to 
 them, and appeal to them, as though he thought there 
 was something left not totally depraved, either in the 
 heart, or mind, to which he could appeal ? If my bro- 
 ther thought that there was nothing good in humanity, 
 no good soil in the heart, would he think it worth while 
 to preach to sinners. Could the seed fall into good 
 ground^^ if there were no '-^good ground V If there be 
 np congenial soil, our farmer friends know very well that 
 their seed will not grow ; but there is that in the heart 
 of man, which responds to the appeal from the Word of 
 God — a conscience which, though depraved, is not totally 
 depraved ; for the spirit of God finds a response there. 
 My brother confounds general depravity, in which we 
 are agreed, with total depravity, on which we difier. He 
 quotes, " I have nourished, and brought up children, and 
 they have rebelled against me ;" but this can not mean 
 that they were put off at an infinite distance from God 
 in Adam. No, they are children, who have gone astray 
 like the prodigal son, not born astray. He says that we 
 are only responsible for our own sins, and quotes Ezekiel 
 to prove it ; but that is on my side of the question, so 
 that it is soon answered. 
 
 He says that this depravity evinces itself in a hatred 
 of God. Yery true, the Scriptures constantly teach that 
 man is depraved. He quotes Romans viii, 7, ''The carnal 
 mind is enmity against God." This is true, but the car- 
 nal mind here is not what he makes it ; but the minding 
 of the things of the flesh. He says, that depravity is 
 evidenced by forgetfulness of God. That is true; but it 
 is not to the question. We both hold that man is de- 
 praved. He quotes Jeremiah : " This people will revolt 
 more and more ;" but according to my brother, they can 
 not — they can not become more and more depraved, for 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 8T3 
 
 they were totally depraved at the start — their hearts 
 were all made totally alien from God at the beginning; 
 hence, they can not revolt more and more. My brother 
 should not quote such texts ; they are not on his side, for 
 they are true. He quotes Ps. xiv, 3, " There is none 
 that doeth God," to prove that all mankind are totally 
 depraved by nature ; but this is spoken of the wicked, 
 and not of the righteous. In the fourth verse, God says: 
 
 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who 
 eat up my people, as they eat bread," &c. So that God's 
 people are not included among those who do not good. 
 He next quotes Eom. vii, 18, In my flesh dwelleth no 
 good thing." That is the reason why Paul " kept Jiis 
 hody under.'''' Paul was a converted man, but the flesh 
 warred against the spirit ; this flesh will go down to cor- 
 ruption ; but by and by, we shall have a spiritual body, 
 which will act in harmony with the spirit. The flesh is 
 not the man ; but the spirit is the man, and the body, 
 the house we live in. My brother is to prove, not that 
 we are depraved, or all depraved ; we agree on that ; but 
 that all mankind are, by nature., totally depraved — that 
 there is no good thing in us at all ; being, by natural 
 generation as had as loe can 5^?, — that as the enemy 
 of souls is only totally depraved, as he is, even so are we. 
 
 He quotes Gen. iii, 17, that man " is to return to the 
 dust ;" but this does not prove that his nature is totally 
 depraved. And Job xv, 16, ''Man drinketh in ini- 
 quity ;" but this does not prove that he was full, totally 
 depraved at birth, for then he would hold no more. 
 Col. iii, 21, "That all are concluded sin," shows 
 
 that God did not consider all totally depraved. "To fear 
 God," because we have sinned against him, is no proof 
 of total depravity by nature, for the least sinful have the 
 deepest sense of guilt, often. AFy brother does not con- 
 sider the question ; but reads from the Scripture Manual., 
 in the order there laid down, without reference to the 
 appropriateness of the application. Is. i, 2, "I have 
 nourished, and brought up children, and they have 
 
874 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 rebelled," proves that we were God's children, and not 
 totally depraved in infancy. Job v, 15, " What is man, 
 that he should be clean," might be applicable, if I con- 
 tended, that all men are holy. Why does my brother 
 quote these texts? Concerning the song that infants 
 sing in heaven, I refer my brother to Kev. xiv, 3, And 
 they sang, as it were, a new song before the throne, and 
 before the four beasts, and the elders : and no man could 
 learn that song, but the hundred and forty and four 
 thousand, which were redeemed from the earth." Ile^ 
 would have infants sing Unto him, that hath redeemed 
 us from Adam's sin." 
 
 Again, Job xxxxii, 7, " Children that are corrupters, 
 they have forsaken the Lord, they are gone avmy back- 
 ward." Here we see that they were not born totally de- 
 praved ; but that they turned away voluntarily. It has 
 ever been so. I will read Clarke on this passage: "They 
 have turned their backs upon him, so Kinchi explains it; 
 they have turned unto him the back, and not the face. 
 See Jer. ii, 27. and vii, 24. I have been forced to ren- 
 der this passage paraphretically, as a verbal translation, 
 they are estranged hackward^ would have been unintel- 
 ligible." — Clarke on Job xi, 7. 
 
 So far from considering righteousness contrary to our 
 nature, the fathers (see Neander ii, 561), could say: 
 " What is easier, what lighter burden is there than this ; 
 to take delight in abstaining from sin, in willing what 
 is good, in hating none," etc. Such were the views of 
 Hilary, "who quotes Fs. Iviii, 5, to show that sin can not 
 be considered as anything innate, but must be referred to 
 a guilty hardening of the will." P. 562. "xSm not 
 innate.''^ That is, not our nature, but the mortal enemy 
 of our nature. My brother quotes Rom. iv, 15, "Where 
 there is no law, there is no transgression." ^To which I 
 answer ; then there is no sin ; for " sin is a transgression 
 of the law." The putting enmity between the woman and 
 the serpent, Gen. iii, 5, rather proves an enmity of 
 evil, and hence, an absence of total natural depravity. 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 375 
 
 He quotes Gen. vi, 5, " God saw that the wickedness of 
 man was great on the earth, and that every imagination 
 of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,'' 
 <S:c. Kow, nothing is here said of the nature of man, 
 but of his practice, and it is fully explained in Ecclesiastes 
 vii, 29, God made man upright, but they have sought 
 out many inventions,'' and this, is confirmed by Gen. vi, 
 12, ^'AU flesh had corrupted its vxiy upon the earth," 
 not that Adam had corrupted the nature of all flesh with 
 total depravity ; but the charge is against all ; yet, to this 
 all^ there are some noble exceptions, and during the fif- 
 teen hundred years that man had existed on the earth, 
 some had shone as lights in the earth, relieving the 
 darkness of the universal gloom. There was a righteous 
 Abel. Enoch walked with God, and Xoah was a right- 
 eous man. These were types of piety, and with many 
 others, no doubt, children ; yea, sons of God, amid the 
 general alienation. 
 
 Also, it is to be considered, that had the great moral 
 evil laid in our nature, the remedy would have been 
 applied there, and not to the outward boughs of the tree ; 
 not to the fiiiit. In consequence of the great wicked- 
 ness of man, God determined to destroy the world by a 
 flood, with the exception of one family ; but this could in 
 nowise remove the difficulty, if the evil lay in the nature, 
 since that family preserved the nature, which proves 
 that God did not regard the evil as in nature, but in 
 practice. 
 
 He quotes Job xxii, 5, " Is not thy wickedness great, 
 and thine iniquities infinite ? '' this is not the language of 
 pious Job, but of Eiiphaz, one of his three friends, of 
 whom God said, '-they have not spoken the thing that is 
 right concerning me, as my servant. Job, hath." That 
 sin is not infinite, is proved, for where " sin abounded^ 
 grace did much more abound ;" but nothing can exceed 
 infinity. Also, in this text nothing is said of our nature. 
 
 Isa. i, 4, 5, 6, speaks of the great wickedness of the 
 Israelites ; calls them a sinful nation, a people laden 
 
376 
 
 DISCUSSION OS 
 
 with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers^ children that are cor- 
 rupters, who h-dve forsaJcen the Lord — gone away back- 
 ward, and says, ''Why should you be stricken any more, 
 ye will revolt more and more : the whole head is sick, 
 and the whole heart faint ; from the sole of the foot, even 
 unto the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds, 
 and bruises, and putrefying sores ; they have not been 
 closed, neither bound up," &c. This is not speaking of 
 the sins of individuals, but of national crimes ; Clarke 
 says, There are some who explain it thus : ' upon what 
 limb shall you be smitten, if you had defection ; for 
 already, for your sins, have you been smitten upon all of 
 them ; so that there is not to be found in you a whole 
 limb on which you can be smitten.' " — Clarke, Isa. i, 5, 6. 
 Which agrees with verse 7, " Your country is desolate, 
 your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers 
 devour in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown 
 by strangers." 
 
 Still God, in speaking of that very nation, see 
 Jer. ii, 21, says, " Yet I had planted thee a noble 
 vine, wholly a right seed, how then art thou become 
 the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me." The 
 fault was not in their nature, but in their practice ; they 
 were evil-doers who had forsaken the Lord, and gone 
 away backward. The loathsome description of their 
 wounds and bruises, referred to their calamities, and the 
 head sick and heart faint, represented that the king, the 
 head of, and the priest, the heart of the body politic and 
 religious, were also corrupt ; and in this explanation, 
 Clarke, my brother's own authority, agrees. See also 
 verses 7 and 8. 
 
 Jer. xvii, 5, "The heart is deceitful above all things, 
 and desperately wicked." This says nothing of our na- 
 ture, and though in itself too true, yet is not a correct 
 translation. Listead of desperately wicked, the original 
 signifies loeah^feehlc, wretched^ as witnessed by Clarke. 
 
 Clarke, Jer. xvii, 9, "The heart is deceitful above all 
 things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it ? 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 87T 
 
 Desperately wicked, ve anmli hu^ and is wretched 
 or feeble, distressed beyond all things, in consequence of 
 the wickedness that is in it. I am quite of Mr. Park- 
 hurst's opinion, that this word is badly translated, as 
 anash is never used in Scripture to denote wickedness 
 of any kind." The meaning is nearer akin to the words 
 of Christ concerning the three sleeping disciples in the 
 garden, " The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 
 
 Ps. li, 5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in 
 sin did my mothejuconceive me." This is a part of the 
 language of deep humility in the confession of a prayer, 
 and is no more to be understood literally, than the words, 
 "I am a worm, and no man." — Ps. xxii, 6. Shapen, 
 in the above text, is from the Hebrew cholcdeti^ and 
 signifies hrought forth^ while yecliematen signifies made 
 me warm ; see Clarke. A critical examination of the 
 passage shows it to have been an humble confession that 
 he sprang from a wicked parentage ; but says not one 
 word either of the partial or total depravity of nature. 
 The passage, Ps. Iviii, 3, " The wicked go astray as soon 
 as they are born, speaking lies," proves that our wick- 
 edness lies not in our nature, but practice. It would be 
 hard for those to GO ASTRAY who were born TO- 
 TALLY DEPRAVED. But this text is referred to by 
 Hilary, an orthodox father, who applies it to " a guilty 
 hardening of the will : but never recognises man as hav- 
 ing lost the divine image." "All moral evih however, 
 Hilary seems to refer to the sensuous nature, while in 
 the soul, he recognizes the indestructible image of God. 
 Thus the contrariety betwixt the inner and outer man, is 
 to him no other than that betwixt spirit and sense." 
 Neander, Vol. ii, pp. 559 — 562. 
 
 Hilary is one of the most orthodox fathers of the 
 fourth century, and his views were the views of the 
 Church at that period : but how widely difi'erent from 
 my brother, you may judge by the following : " Those 
 who painfully struggle along," says he, "under the diffi- 
 culties of the law, and those who are burdened with the 
 32 
 
378 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 sins of the world, Christ calls to himself, and he promises 
 to make the way easv and their burden light, if they will 
 but take his yoke uix>n them, that is. subject themselves 
 to his commands, and come to him under the holy sacra- 
 ment of the cross, because he is meek and lowly of heart, 
 and they shall therein (by submitting to his commands.) 
 find rest to their souls, holding out the allurement of an 
 easy yoke and a light burden, that he may bestow on 
 those who lx?lieve on him, the knowledge of the true 
 good, and what lighter burden is there than this, to take 
 delight in abstaining fi'om sin, in willing what is good, 
 in loving all men, in hating none, in attaining to things 
 that are eternal, in not being carried away by things 
 present and temporal, in being unwilling to do to others 
 what vou would not choose to sufier yourself." — Z!sean- 
 der. Yol. ii, 561. 
 
 Here the gospel is spoken of as being in accordance 
 with our nature, and that which we need to make us 
 happy. 
 
 Ps'. xxii, 10, David declares that God was his God 
 from the very beginning of his existence, which could 
 not have been the case if he was bom totally depraved. 
 
 Before farther examining texts u|X>n the subject, I will 
 now present you with some philosophical, and some 
 Biblical arguments against the doctrine of total depravity. 
 
 1st. We have no proof, whatever, that Adam fell into 
 a state of total depravity; and it is wrong to accuse 
 him of it without pi*oof. 
 
 2d. There is neither Scripture, reason, nor philosophy, 
 for the opinion that one sin will cause all nature to be- 
 come totally depraved ; just as well might we say that 
 one good deed would regenerate and sanctity our natm'c-s 
 through all succeeding generations. We have no proof 
 that Adam fell from the grace of God. God was his 
 father by creation, and followed him with his love even 
 after he had sinned ; and notwithstanding Adam's fear 
 of him. yet God sy^oke to him words of love, and prom- 
 ised him a Saviour to redeem him and aU his posterity ; 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 879 
 
 SO that he had not fallen from God's grace. I know tliat 
 it is a popular doctrine ; but how could we be saved if 
 fallen from God's grace ? Could we be restored to grace 
 without grace ? It is a mistake that the image- of 
 God, in which man was created, was the moral image. 
 God created man in his own image, previous to the 
 existence of any mental or moral faculties in man — pre- 
 vious to his having life. He afterward breathed into 
 him the breath of life, and he became a living soul. 
 
 3d. Abel being good, is as good proof of the perfect 
 holiness of nature, as Cain's sin is of its total depravity. 
 Were that doctrine true, hate would everywhere take the 
 place of love, and there would be no good feeling left in 
 the world. Our conscience would approve of all wrong, 
 and peace of mind would be the consequence of sin. It 
 can not be that children are born totally depraved. We 
 all feel that they are innocent of crime. It is the pure 
 outflowing from the heart in words, of the consciousness 
 of their innocence, which makes mothers so often ex- 
 claim, "If children are not saved, then who will be?" 
 Mothers feel this ; fathers feel it. Why, but because 
 they are innocent ? If you convince those fathers, those 
 mothers, that they are totally depraved — little fiends — as 
 poison as rattlesnakes — the argument for their salvation 
 is lost. 
 
 4th. There is no proof that Adam's children were born 
 totally depraved. That is a forced and unnatural con- 
 struction of the text, which applies, begat a son in his 
 own image," to the internal nature of the child. Image 
 refers not to character, but likeness. The words "I have 
 gotten a man from the Lord," are better proof of the 
 purity of nature. 
 
 5th. If our nature were totally depraved, man would 
 develop himself best, and improve most in sin ; because 
 everything thrives best in its own natural element ; but 
 facts contradict this hypothesis. 
 
 6th. That children sin, is no more proof that they are 
 totally depraved, tlian that they do good is, that they are 
 
380 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 perfectly righteous. 2 Pet. ii, 4. "Angels sinned and 
 yet no one will say that tliey were created totally depraved. 
 
 7th. A child's sinning soon, is no proof that it is 
 totally depraved ; for Adam sinned soon, though he was 
 not created totally depraved. 
 
 Sth. If all were totally depraved, then their nature 
 would be so contrary to the Gospel, that Gospel seed 
 would find no congenial soil — no good ground ; and the 
 farmer well knows, that he not only requu'es good seed, 
 but a congenial soil to raise good fruit. 
 
 9th. If our natures were totally depraved, and we were 
 inclined to evil naturally, as the sparks fly upward,'' 
 then we would sin just as unremittingly as the sparks 
 fly upward ; all this congregation would immediately 
 commence cursing, blaspheming, and sinning in every 
 way, just as truly as the sparks fly upward. 
 
 iOth. If we were totally depraved by nature, then 
 mothers would naturally hate their children : since 
 mother and child would both be totally depraved. Hence, 
 mothers would all destroy their children ; also children 
 their parents ; brothers would hate their sisters, and sis- 
 ters would hate their brothers. 
 
 11th. Then hate ^ Jierce and sanguinary^ ^oxA^ uni- 
 versally take the place of love. 
 
 12th. Then siu of all kinds, would cause great peace 
 of mind, since it would be in accordance with our nature, 
 and nature would find rest in sin. For as we see the lion, 
 wolf, tiger, (fee, are only happy when developing their na- 
 ture unrestrained; so we would only be happy in sin. 
 
 13th. If we are born totally depraved, then there is no 
 hope for children dying before repentance ; since the as- 
 surance of their salvation is everywhere predicated upon 
 their innocence. Matt, xviii, 3, "Jesus said, Sufier little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of 
 such (not totally depraved) of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven. I challenge my brother to produce one text, 
 which promises salvation to totally depraved little child- 
 ren dying without repentance or faith. 
 
HUMAN DEPRATITT. 
 
 381 
 
 14th. If cMldren are not totally depraved by nature^ 
 then none of us are, for we were all oace children. 
 
 loth. But if children are born totally dej^M-aved, then 
 they can not go astray, since they are entirely astray in 
 the start. 
 
 16th. The text, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
 shall all be made alive.'' is no promise of salvation from 
 total depravity to children, since it is a physical death 
 and resurrection of which the apostle is treating. 
 
 17th. We have many exceptions to general and ex- 
 treme depravity, both in and out of the church. We 
 often find heavenly virtues cultivated in the lives of un- 
 regenerate men ; and the Bible, m far from teaching that 
 those virtues are sinful, teaches the contrary; and presents 
 us with such virtuous characters, out of any visible 
 Church organization, as Melchizedec, Job,- and the good 
 Samaritan, by which characters, Buch views are proved 
 untrue. Rom. iii, 10, " There is none righteous," <fec., 
 is explained to mean a certain class, viz : the wicked, by 
 the following sentence, '* Have all the workers of iniquity 
 no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread ?" 
 Ps. xiv, 3. God's people did good. Eph. ii, 3, "Were 
 by nature the children of wrath even as others," alludes 
 not to our internal nature : but as Dr. Macknight says 
 on this text, Xature often signifies one's birth or edu- 
 cation; as Gal. ii, 15. 'We who are Jews by nature;' 
 also natural reason and conscience, as Eom. ii, 14, 'The 
 Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things 
 of the law.' Also, the general sense and practice of 
 mankind, 1 Cor. xi, 14, * Doth not even nature itself 
 teach you, that if a man wear long hair,' d:c. In the 
 passage under consideration, nature is that second cor- 
 rupt, dead nature, which men form in themselves by 
 habitually indulging vicious inclinations ; for the apostle 
 speaks of men being by nature the children of wrath, 
 as the eflect of their having their conversation in the 
 lusts of the flesh. Children of xrraih is a Hebraism 
 signitying, liable to wrath." — Macknight on Eph. ii, 3. 
 
382 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Flood's Second address, and Twenty-sixth speech : 
 My first busiue^ will be to review my brother in his 
 response to my argument. He expresses himself as 
 highly gratified with the course I pursued ; and he hopes 
 his opponent may be equally gratified. He first refers to 
 the tumbler — until separated, the water remains entirely 
 depraved. My brother stated the great argument to be 
 the total, hereditary depravity of human nature. Neither 
 "word occurs in the proposition — neither total nor heredi- 
 tary. He is fruitful in discoveries ; it would be very 
 convenient for him to change the terms ; if he could, 
 he would now mystity the matter. I have read Webster's 
 definition and would have you keep it before you. 
 
 I have never once employed the word total in the dis- 
 cussion of this subject; it is a word of my brother's, 
 although he professes to favor Scripture plu-aseology ; 
 but he should stick to the proposition submitted for dis- 
 cussion. I admit that human nature, in its fallen and 
 depraved condition, is capable of being restored and 
 sanctified ; in which state it enjoys communion with God, 
 in its fullness and glory; every stage of which process of 
 salvation, is accomplished through the merit and atone- 
 ment of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether applied to human 
 nature, in its passive condition, receiving the passive 
 benefit of Christ's atonement, or receiving the merit of 
 his atonement for sins actually committed, it opens a 
 door of hope to the perishing and lost, and invites them 
 to come to God by Jesus Christ. 
 
 By what law shall man be justified — the law of works ? 
 aSo \ but the law of faith. So that faith in the atone- 
 ment of Jesus Christ, restores him to the condition in 
 which he stood before the fall of Adam. My opponent 
 denies that the fall of Adam included a moral death. I 
 do not wonder at Mr. Summerbell being claimed by 
 Uuiversalists. The Universalists will be found with 
 him here, in denying that a moral death is implied ; 
 that though he broke the only law given him in a state 
 of innocence, he does not morally die ; and though he 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 383 
 
 has traDSgressed, yet he is still spiritually alive in the 
 sight of God. Ballou^ Balfour^ Rogers, and a host of 
 others, advocate the same position precisely, that the 
 soul, or spirit was not depraved in consequence of the 
 fall, but is still pure in the sight of God. My ])rother 
 asks, is a man, after his conversion, as good as an infant ? 
 Jesus Christ said, ''Except a man be converted and be- 
 come as a little child, he can not enter the kingdom of 
 heaven." After conversion, he is justified by virtue of 
 what Christ has done for him, through the redemption that 
 is in Christ Jesus. Hence, he assumes the same justified 
 relation that the infant does in the sight of God. Child- 
 ren, he exclaims, totally depraved I Who ever asserted 
 it ? Children share the benefit of Christ's death, as they 
 fell passively in their federal head, so are they redeemed 
 passively by Jesus Christ. 
 
 I suppose Mr. Summerbell will understand this posi- 
 tion. He desired me to invert the language of our Sa- 
 viour. That would be insulting to Jehovah, who has never 
 uttered such a sentiment in any portion of his Word. 
 He says there is a conscience in the wicked that may be 
 touched ; and from this he supposed they are not entirely 
 depraved. Now, I read of a conscience that is seared as 
 with a hot iron, and one that is become so lost to a 
 sense of its obligations, that it is invulnerable, even to 
 things of divine truth. That is the state of the wicked ; 
 they are always represented as dead. The Scriptures 
 say, arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 
 But how, by natural strength, by being possessed of a 
 power that is not naturally depraved, exerting that natural 
 power and arising from the dead ? 
 
 This figure of speech is employed to represent the con- 
 dition of the wicked, and but very poorly represents the 
 idea of partial depravity. " The carnal mind is enmity 
 with God." The carnal mind is enmity, and, of course, 
 in hostility against God ; it is arrayed against God with 
 all the energy it possesses. 
 
 "If we are totally depraved in the start, we never 
 
384 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 could become worse." Here is the word total again. I 
 Dotice it in every single case. Who used the word total ? 
 I assumed that human nature was depraved in all its 
 parts, thorouglily and entirely depraved by sin ; the 
 transgression of a single law of God, polluted and cor- 
 rupted the whole man. There has no part escaped the 
 contagion of sin — it spread through man's whole body ; 
 " but he would not, then, become worse and worse." I 
 have never yet asserted it. In my flesh," according to 
 the language of Paul, ''there is no good thing." My 
 brother says, " Paul does not intimate that in his spirit 
 there is no good thing." If he intimates that in his 
 fallen condition there is no good thing, then, in the spirit, 
 there is some good thing — that it is the soul or spirit that 
 is not depraved. 
 
 Does he assume this is Paul's converted condition ? 
 He was as other converted men in proportion to his 
 attainment in moral virtue. How was he righteous ? 
 By the deeds of the law, or belief in the promise made, 
 " That the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
 bead?" Was it by a passive obedience, or was he justi- 
 fied as other sinners, through faith in the promised Mes- 
 siah ? He refers to the quotation made from Job, and 
 says it is not inspired ; I leave you to consider this shift. 
 He then quotes Neandei\ and defines the term guilty. 
 That sounds very much like that, when a man is guilty, 
 and hardening his heart, he must be very much depraved; 
 as soon as the Bible fails, he appeals to Neander. 
 
 If children are entirely depraved, they go astray as soon 
 as they are born. There is a real disposition to evil. It 
 grows out of the fact of the children inheriting the fallen 
 nature of the parents ; but the infant never becomes culpa- 
 ble before God, until it actually and knowingly transgresses 
 the law of God. We have proof that children are born in 
 a depraved state, but not in a state of guilt. Genesis iv, 
 9, 10, "And the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel, thy 
 brother ? And he said, I know not : am I my brother's 
 keeper \ And he said, What hast thou done ? the voice 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 885 
 
 of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from tne ground." 
 How, was Abel justified by laith ? 
 
 Hebrews xi, 4, By faith Abol offered unto God a 
 more excellent sacrifice than Cain's, by which he obtained 
 witness that he was righteous : God justifying his gifts, 
 and by it he being dead, yet speaketli." Here we have 
 the ground of AheVs standing justified in the sight 
 of God, that he had faith. When he came to offer 
 his sacrifice, he brought the firstlings of his flock, and 
 these were types like unto the great sacrifice that should 
 be made and ofiered for sin. Hence, Abel was justified 
 in the sight of God ; and though thousands of years have 
 passed away, man is justified by faith in the Messiah still. 
 
 Cain brought the fruits of the ground — his offering 
 was not calculated, in its nature, to indicate faith in the 
 promised Messiah, and this induced Cain to envy the 
 better condition of his brother ; and when they were 
 alone in the field, he rose up against him. and slew him. 
 Rather an unfortunate matter for my brother to refer to. 
 First, an act of murder, perpetrated by a brother upon 
 the person of a brother ; and then the manifestation of 
 hypocrisy. This depravity produced a falsehood ; he 
 said, I know not; but he knew well. He showed indif- 
 ference for his brother's welfare ; and he inquired, im- 
 pudently addressing himself thus to his Creator, Am 
 I my brother's keeper V But God said, What hast 
 thou done ? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto 
 me from the ground." The baseness of thy heart is 
 opened and exposed to my view ; the deep, dark, and 
 horrible secrets of wickedness, that dwell within thy 
 heart, are all exposed to view ; the murderous impulses 
 of soul that prompted thee to the destruction of thy bro- 
 ther, are all before me, and 1 hold thee to a strict 
 accountability. 
 
 My brother said, that Adam's children were not bom 
 totally depraved. We have never asserted once that they 
 were born totally depraved ; this is the language of my 
 friend ; he may use it, but I shall adhere closely to the 
 33 
 
 1 
 
886 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 proposition, to the close of the subject, this afternoon. 
 Irrelevant matter (except so far as I nmj be drawn aside 
 by my brother,) will not be found to have a place in this 
 argument. 
 
 He says that if man is by nature inclined to evil, he 
 "will improve the more by continuing in wickedness. This 
 is my friend's theology. I do not wish to father it. He 
 may nurture it at his leisure. I have assumed no such 
 condition. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Second reply and Twenty-sixth speech: 
 Kind Friends — My brother's position, that children are 
 sinners, is contrary to Paul, who says, Rom. ix, 11, 
 " At birth, the children being not yet born, neither having 
 done any good or evilP He charges me with saying, 
 that if they are totally depraved they had better continue 
 in sin. I said no such thing ; but that if their argument 
 be true, they w^ould thrive better in sin than in righteous- 
 ness. If you take a bird out of the air and confine it to 
 the water, you wall destroy it, because you violate its 
 nature. 
 
 If you take a fish out of the water, you destroy it, 
 because you remove it from its natural element. No 
 principle is capable of clearer philosophical demonstra- 
 tion than this : that everything thrives best in its natural 
 element. Thus, if you take a tree from its natural soil, 
 even on the barren heath, and plant it in the rich alluvial 
 soil, or even gold dust^ — will it thrive ? Everything 
 flourishes best in its ow^n natural element. And since 
 my brother makes man's nature totally depraved^ he 
 must fight the whole philosophy of nature, or admit 
 that man will flourish best in sin ; but this is contrary to 
 all observation and experience. Sin wars on our nature ; 
 it hardens the heart, disturbs the mind, sears the con- 
 science, is repugnant to the soul ; it is not in his upright 
 way^ but ho, falls into it ; it is not his nature, but a llot^ 
 a stain^ a spot on his nature ; it destroys his nature, 
 destroys his humanity, and finally destroys the man, body 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 88T 
 
 and soul. My brother ^avely objects to my nse of the 
 words, " totally depraved." I am here to discuss the 
 question- of Depravity. "^"^ If he does not believe 
 
 that human nature is totally depraved, let him say so, 
 and the discussion is ended. But I will not allow him to 
 dodge the point. Totally, means entirehj^ or it means 
 nothing. 1 am not here to argue that men are not de- 
 praved. / helieve that^ and lament over it. But I con- 
 tend, that however bad, they are not totally dejrraved 
 hy nature. Is not the doctrine of total depravity taught 
 by the orthodox % Then, why try to avoid it % He says, 
 that the Universal ists claim me. Yery well, my friends, 
 I am not at all concerned at that. I do not know, but 
 what a Universalist may JZ;?/ he saved ! I have never 
 studied their theory much, but 1 am not their judge. It 
 is very easy for us to despise others, but the great thing 
 is, to be sure that we are right ourselves. I remember 
 our Saviour said, that it would be more tolerable in the 
 day of judgment, for Sodom and Gomorrah, than for 
 some who heard him and were accounted orthodox. If 
 a Universalist said a word in my favor, I will warrant 
 you, my brother would rather it had been said in his. 
 He is troubled that they speak in my favor, but I can not 
 help it ; things will go so. My brother objects to the 
 word total ^ but he does not deny that children are entirely 
 depraved. Now, let him convince the mother, if he can, 
 that the smiling infant at her breast is a smiling fiend — 
 entirely depraved and inclined to evil only, and that con- 
 tinually ; that when it looks up to its mother, it is the 
 look of a serpent ; that its smile is not the reflection 
 of the sunliglit of heaven, but the evidence of total 
 depravity. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I do not feel disposed to sit here, and 
 listen to these misrepresentations of my views. I have 
 never once said that children were totally depraved. 
 
 Mr. Su]srMERBELL. — Will you deny that they are ? 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I do deny it. Children are not totally- 
 depraved. 
 
888 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Soimerbell. — I do not know where the gentle- 
 man is, and I do not believe that he himself knows. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I will not allow him to say, that I have 
 asserted the total depravity of infants. 
 
 Mr. SuMiiERBELL. — After I arrived here, my brother 
 objected to the word totally^ because, as he said, it was 
 unpopular, but was willing to insert the word, entirely^ 
 which, he said, meant just the same thing. And the 
 sentence included in the parentheses, was put in to suit 
 him, as he would not consent to discuss the question 
 without it. I expected some such squirming as this, 
 when it came to the point. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I want no misrepresentation of my views. 
 
 Mr. SumiERBELL. — Will the Moderators 2^^-^^^^ to tell 
 ns the difference between totally and entirely ? 
 
 Mr. Flood. — That is not the question. 
 
 Moderators. — The Board wishes to understand what 
 the point of difference is ? 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I stated that infants, in their passive 
 condition, stand justified in the sight of God, and sus- 
 tain the same relation to Jesus Christ that older converts 
 do. All actual sinners are depraved ; but children are 
 not actual sinners, and therefore can not be entirely 
 depraved. They are huuian nature fallen, but not 
 totally depraved. 
 
 Mr. Scmmerbell. — But if human nature is totally- 
 depraved, and this depravity is engeiidered hy natural 
 generation^ as his Creed says, then it must exist in 
 children before they are adults. 
 
 Moderators. — We submit, that there seems on the 
 very face of the proposition, an inconceivable difficulty. 
 If we strike out the parentheses, we can decide ; but as it 
 is, we can not. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — The first pare of the proposition, relates 
 to the condition of man, during the time that elapsed 
 from the fall to the prom.ise of the Messiah. The second, 
 to the condition of actual transgressors, whether they 
 be entirely or partially depraved. 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 889 
 
 Mr. SuisrMERBELL. — [Reads from the Protestant Meth- 
 odist Articles of Relii^jion.] " Original sin standeth not 
 in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly 
 talk,) but is the corruption of the nature of every man, 
 that naturally is engendered of the oflspring of Adam, 
 whereby man is very far gone from original righteous- 
 ness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that 
 continually." Here it distinctly says, that man is, of his 
 owri nature^ inclined to evil, and that continually; and 
 that this depravity is engendered of the ofispring of 
 Adam, and yet he denies the depravity of infants. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — There is unfairness in this. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell. — You said thai you did^ before 
 this audience. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — I stated that Adam, in his fall, prior to 
 the promise of redemption, was in a state fallen from 
 grace, and consequently that all actual transgressors of 
 God's law are entirely depraved ; and that those inherit- 
 ing a fallen nature, are inclined to evil, and that continu- 
 ally. The inclination to evil, I admit ; but the guiltiness 
 and entire depravity of infancy, I have never assumed, 
 but precisely the opposite. 
 
 Moderators. — The difficulty is, in understanding what 
 the disputants intended. Was it, that mankind, through 
 the transgression of Adam, became entirely depraved ? 
 
 Mr. Flood. — No sir ! I will admit of no such modi- 
 fication. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell. — I wish my brother w^ould admit 
 the word, total^ and if he does not believe it, he may 
 choose any other minister to discuss it. A Presby- 
 terian, or — 
 
 Mr. Flood. — Yes ; you would like very well to get 
 rid of me. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell. — Not at all ; but that is the only 
 question, and you admitted that totally and entirely 
 meant the same. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — My brother continues to put words into 
 my mouth. 
 
390 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 MoDEEATORs. — "Will the speakers consent to this mod- 
 ification ? ''Are mankind, througli the transgression of 
 Adam, up to the promise of the Messiali. entirely 
 depraved V 
 
 Mr, Summerbell. — When was that promise made ? 
 My brother might say, tiiat it was made in tv:o houra^ 
 and so confine total depravity to that short period. I 
 will consent to an}' modification that will leave a question 
 between us. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — My brother is fruitful in discoveries. I 
 never before heard that any divine had fixed the period. 
 Mr. Summerbell is willing to argue a false issue, if 
 I am. 
 
 Mr. Sl'mmerbell. — I am willing to prove yours a 
 false issue. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — That every actual sinner violating the 
 law of God, is entirely depraved ; that is a point no 
 theologian is disposed to deny. (Reads the Article on 
 Depravity from the Discipline.) I agree with this, and 
 am willing to prove it true. I propose to accept the 
 Article. 
 
 Mr. Su^niERBELL. — I refuse to do so, because the Ar- 
 ticle does not say totally depraved ; but if he will admit 
 that it means that, I will discuss it. I did not know that 
 he had a secret design in changing the word totally to 
 entirely. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — He says he did not know I had a secret 
 design in introducing the word entirely^ instead of 
 totoXly. I wish you to notice that he impugns my mo- 
 tives. This is not the first time he has uttered such 
 insinuations ; but these lunges at a person's reputation, 
 are most discreditable. 
 
 Mr. Sl-:mmereell. — I can bring witnesses to prove, 
 that he admitted that the words meant the same, when 
 he inserted entirely. 
 
 Moderators. — The conclusion the board has come 
 to is, that the words in the parentheses do not alter the 
 questioD. 
 
HUMAX DEPRAVITY. 
 
 891 
 
 Me. Flood. — The board seems to have changed its 
 ground. I suppose they intend to do what is right. One 
 of them is on my side, and one on Mr. Summerbell's, 
 the third one, I suppose — 
 
 Mr. SciiMERBELL. — As mv brother does not seem to 
 be satisfied with the decision, I am willing to leave it to 
 a minister, whom I see in the congregation, who, I think, 
 is a grammarian, and is on his side of the house, though 
 I am not acquainted with him. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — Who is he ? 
 
 Mr. SoniERBELL. — I do not know his name. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — How do you know that he is on my side 
 of the question ? 
 
 Mr. SuiDiERBELL. — I do not ; but I think he is, and 
 if he is not, you may object to him when he arises. 
 
 Mr. Flood. — Well, call upon him. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell then pointed out the Eev. Mr. , 
 
 of the M. E. Church, who was immediately accepted by 
 Mr. Flood, and the decision submitted to him by the 
 Moderators. 
 
 Eev. Mr. , (Eeads the proposition.) I under- 
 
 , stand by the parenthesis here introduced, that man was 
 depraved up to the time that redemption was promised 
 by Jesus Christ, and that after this redemption was pro- 
 mised by Christ, we no longer remain depraved, in the 
 sense that we were depraved before that promise was 
 made. I understand the term mankind^ to refer to the 
 whole of the human family, and that, therefore, all are 
 depraved, and that infants, before they are regenerated, 
 are depraved. I also understand the doctrine of the 
 Article to be total depravity. I think that without this 
 parenthesis, the proposition of the question will be pro- 
 perly stated. '"''Mankind^ through the transgressioTt of 
 Adarii^ are hy nature^ entirely depraved^ and inclined 
 to eml^ and that continually.^^ 
 
 Mr. Suloierbell. — My brother has acknowledged 
 that he did mean entirely depraved, and that entirely 
 means the same as totally. But he denies that children 
 
892 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 are totally depraved ; but bis discipline says, tbat entire 
 depravity comes hy generation ; if so, they must be en- 
 tirely depraved. He says that one transgression will 
 make us totally depraved. If so, then, we are all totally 
 depraved now, no matter when converted. If we were 
 totally depraved, we would hate our children, instead of 
 loving them. Pouring poison into a tumbler of water, 
 will not change the nature of the water ; but it is the 
 nature of the water to purify itself from the poison, 
 showing the poison to be contrary to its nature. So in 
 conversion, we are purified from our sins ; but we still 
 retain human nature. God so loved us even before con- 
 verted, as to give his only begotten Son for our salvation ; 
 but do you suppose that God could love us, if we were 
 totally depraved, with no single good thing connected 
 wnth usi What would there be to love, but total de- 
 pravity — sin ? and God cannot look upon sin w-ith the 
 least degree of allowance. I know not, but that the rea- 
 son why salvation is not provided for fallen angels, if it 
 be not, is because they are totally depraved. I say ^/, 
 it be not, for some persons suppose that they have re- 
 demption. A very learned man has lately published a ^ 
 work, to prove that Clirist saves persons in the spirit- 
 world. But if they were totally depraved, it would be 
 a good reason why God would not love them, or provide 
 a Saviour for them. 
 
 Conversion is called washing; but in w^ashing, the 
 garment is there ; its texture, its nature is unchanged ; 
 it is only defiled, not destroyed, and in washing, the de- 
 filement is separated from it. It is not the nature of the 
 garment that is taken away. Christ is called a refiner's 
 fire ; but we never refine dross. There must be some 
 gold, w^hen it goes into the refiner's fire, or none will 
 pass through it. The dross will not become gold. There 
 must be something good in man, to afibrd a foundation 
 for God to love him, or for Christ to love him. They 
 can not love total depravity. In the parable of the hun- 
 dred sheep, where one was lost, it was not a wolf that 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 893 
 
 was lost, but a sheep of the same nature of the ninety- 
 nine left in the wilderness. Not one that was never in 
 tb.e fold; but one of the original hundred. They re- 
 mained ; but this one was a lost sheep, which the shep- 
 \^rd loved, and left the ninety and nine to bring back to 
 tlie fold. Ttiis parable beautifully ilhistrates our going 
 astray, and our lost condition ; but if our nature become 
 changed, totally depraved, leaving no good about us, 
 the great Shepherd could not love ns, and no attempt 
 would be made to redeem us. In the parable of the 
 woman that had the ten pieces of silver, of which one 
 was lost, the Saviour does not teach that she originally 
 had nine, and sought another in the mines ; or that the 
 lost one was not silver. Nor, when she found it, did she 
 find an entire lump of dross, with no silver about it ; but 
 there was good metal even in the lost piece. So, also, 
 in the parabl,e of the prodigal son. It was not that the 
 father liad one son, and sent and procured a wild man ; 
 or a being of totally distinct nature, and adopted as a 
 second son ; but it was his own son, who was originally 
 in his own father's house, and who, of his Own choice, 
 left that house, and went into a far country, and spent 
 the substance, which he had received of a loving father, in 
 riotous living ; who remembered his father's house, from 
 whence he came, and said, I will arise and go to my 
 father, and I will say, I have sinned ; but his father saw 
 him, when he was yet a great way ofi', and though he 
 had rebelled, yet the flither loved him, and ran and fell 
 on his neck, and kissed him, and brought him into the 
 house, and commanded them to bring forth the best robe 
 and put it on him, and a ring on his finger, and shoes 
 on his feet, and to kill the fatted calf; for, said he, this, 
 my son^ which was dead, is alive again, and was lost, i^ 
 found. Bless God for such illustrations of his love. The 
 son was not horn a prodigal, in a strange land, or far off 
 country; but he came back to the place of his birth, to 
 his own father's house. True, the sinner is dead in 
 trespasses, and in sins ; but this death does not imply a 
 
894 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 lack of all life, so that it is impossible to do any good ; 
 any more than tlie saint's deadness to sin — ye are dead, 
 and 3'our lite is hid with Christ in God — implies that 
 they have not power to sin ; but it signifies deadness to 
 the life of holiness. Those tlms dead, are free to do good, 
 if they will, and are absolutely called upon to do good*: 
 "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." 
 This deadness is not a deadness of power or ability' ; but 
 a cessation of efibrt and activity. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Third address, and Twenty-seventh speech : 
 We proceed now, briefly, to review our opponent, Mr. 
 Summerbell. He insists, that if human nature is entirely 
 depraved in the progeny of a fallen head, as the descend- 
 ants of x\dara must necessarily be, then Adam must 
 have been entirely depraved when he proceeded from the 
 hand of God. We believe that like produces like — that 
 Adam, in his creation, was made upright in the sight of 
 his Creator, God, and that in sinning against God he 
 lost that likeness, and that this constitutes the nature of 
 his fall. He fell from the fovor and friendship of heaven, 
 by violating the law- of God. He says, if this doctrine 
 of depravity were true, mothers, instead of loving their 
 children, would kill them. Is not my brother aware that 
 this practice prevails in heathen countries ? There are 
 thousands of children sacrificed annually, being cast into 
 the Ganges, and multitudes perish annually under the 
 rolling wheels of Juggernaut. Such is the depravity of 
 human nature. We quote from Romans i, 31, With- 
 out understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural 
 aftection, implacable, unmerciful:'' referring, doubtless, 
 to the heathen worship. Such are the consequences of 
 the fall, that it produces such a measure of depravity, 
 that natural affection is lost- -that the mother may forget 
 her sucking child. He represents that they would be as 
 bad as rattlesnakes, and represents little children looking 
 up into the faces of their mothers as fiends. Who has 
 assumed that little children, in their redeemed relation, 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 395 
 
 are as rattlesnakes ? Though they inherit a corrupt na- 
 ture, and are inclined to evil, yet the redemption by 
 Christ changes their relation, and they stand justified in 
 the sight ol* God, not by natural generation, but through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; for if infants be 
 saved by natural regeneration, then they will not join the 
 Bong of the Redeemer, and will not be numbered with 
 the innumerable hosts of God's elect saved in heaven ; 
 they will have found their way to heaven upon difierent 
 ground altogether. We say of all infant children, of 
 Christian or heathen parents, that those infant children, 
 being passive in the fall, received the benefit of the atone- 
 ment, and are saved in Jesus Christ ; though by natural 
 generation they inherit the same nature which their 
 parents possessed — for like must beget like — ''None are 
 righteous, no not one." Romans iii, 10. How is the 
 apostle speaking of righteousness here? no living soul 
 can be justified by the deeds of the law. "By the deeds 
 of the law shall no flesh be justified ; " hence, legally, 
 there are none righteous, no not one: but in an evangel- 
 ical sense, I am happy to say there are many. All in- 
 fants sustain this relation in an evangelical sense, but not 
 in a legal sense. He says, I have a very crude theo- 
 logy ; I suppose he so regards it. Perhaps this is the 
 reason why it is so troublesome to him ; it seems he has 
 found out what my theology is, but I will not pretend to 
 say what his is, 1 have made few discoveries in that di- 
 rection. He, however, agrees with the Universalists, 
 that man did not morally die in the fall, and thinks the 
 Bible is incorrect in stating that " in the day thou eatest 
 thereof, thou shalt surely die." I do not assume that the 
 physical or intellectual organization of man was annihi- 
 lated in the fall. We say that all the intellectual and 
 physical qualities of man were alike affected by the fall. 
 They were not annihilated, but turned into a perverse 
 direction ; hence, the will and aftections of man are per- 
 verse in their natures. Man's nature is corrupt and 
 depraved, " corrupt, polluted in all its parts hence, God 
 
396 
 
 DISCUSSIO:^ ON 
 
 could not love them with the love of complacency, but 
 with tlie love of pity ; he could not love them to tlie ex- 
 tent that he loved angels, but his love was equal to their 
 most extended wants, so that he provided for their 
 redemption and salvation. 
 
 lie says, at last, my friend has acknowledged that hu- 
 man nature is entirely depraved. It is the vers' thing I 
 presented in my first argument, and I su]:>ported by over- 
 whelming testimony from the Word of God. I want an 
 answer to those texts which show the entire depravity of 
 human nature. The reference to the parable of tlie nine- 
 ty-nine sheep, while the good shepherd went in pursuit 
 of the hundredth that was lost — that lost sheep, I sup- 
 pose, had not lost its identity. So is it with the lost 
 inhabitants of this world, they have lost their moral ex- 
 cellence and likeness to God; in this condition Jesus 
 Christ found them, and came to restore them to favor. 
 '"He came to seek and to save that which was lost," not 
 that which was partially lost. If the doctrine of my 
 brother is correct, Jesus Christ came to perform a par- 
 tial work. Then he adverts to the parable of the Prodi- 
 gal Son — one of the last I should have thought he would 
 have introduced. What was the condition of this young 
 man? He was in his fathers house, which he volun- 
 tarily left, voluntarily he wasted his goods. But at 
 length, it is said, he came to himself, so that he was as a 
 man lost to himself. Do men that are dead, awake to 
 life without the voice of God ? In order to give some 
 show of argument, he asserted that were man entirely 
 depraved, he would be as water running down hill. 1 
 said, that man was inclined to evil, and that continually, 
 as I have shown Irom texts from the Word of God, and 
 my friend has not succeeded in making anything to the 
 contrary appear. I now invite your attention to my 
 eighth proposition. 
 
 8th. The relations of infants to the law is not the relation 
 sustained by actual transgressors, though they inherit an 
 entirely depraved nature by their parentage, yet infants 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 39T 
 
 are passive in the fell, and must be passive in the redemp- 
 tion by Jesus Christ; they cannot be subjects of law, 
 therefore they are unconditionally saved in Jesus Christ. 
 " Where there is no law there is no trausgresaion." — 
 Rom. V, 15. 
 
 From this it will be seen, that although they are sub- 
 jects of the law, they are not transgressors of the law of 
 God. Hence, not guilty, and hence, not condemned, and 
 are therefore justified, sanctified, and saved, not by the 
 law, but by the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence, Chris- 
 tian mothers need not look upon their infants as little 
 fiends, and rattlesnakes, but as heirs of heaven if they 
 pass away in a state of infancy. Let us rejoice that this 
 is the grand doctrine of the Bible with regard to infant 
 salvation. We now invite you to further proof, Rom. v, 
 18, "Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment camo 
 upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteous- 
 ness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justifica- 
 tion of life." And the term (men) hence is applicable to 
 the whole race. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Third reply, and Twenty-seventh 
 speech : 
 
 I am more and more pleased with my brother's exer- 
 tions ; he is at the laboring oar, but he toils well. It is 
 true, he is suffering somewhat from fever, but I hope 
 this will pass off. He talks about courtesy, and says he 
 will defend the doctrine of the Trinity against my attacks, 
 as though I had attacked it. He says that children fell, 
 but were not condemned ; that they were lost, but not 
 guilty ; subjects of law, jet without law ; fallen, but not 
 sinners ; not condemned, yet redeemed. This is very 
 crooked theology. It is better to have a true system, 
 then he would not have to cross his track so often. He 
 says that infants were passive yet fell : passive yet re- 
 deemed ; so that the infants have nothing to do with it. 
 My brother has yet to prove that any thing was ever 
 redeemed from total depravity. My argument that God 
 
898 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 could not love any thing that was totally depraved, my 
 brother has not answered, and can not answer. He says 
 infants were passive in the fall, and could not be con- 
 demned, because they had not sinned ; thus God had to 
 bring in the atonement as a kind of remedy for his bad 
 government. God had placed infants where they would 
 go to hell innocently, by his bad arrangement ; so he is 
 obh'ged to provide the atonement to keep them out ! 
 
 lie answers the parables by saying tliat the prodigal 
 son would not have come back without God's grace ; as 
 though I had said that men would be saved without the 
 grace of God. He has quoted no one text whicli shows 
 that man is entirely depraved in his nature, and inclined 
 to evil, and that continually, so that he can not think 
 one good thought, or do one good act, or put forth any 
 good exertion in the right way. 
 
 My friend urges that he holds to the salvation of all 
 children ; I know he does, but I challenge him to prove 
 it by his system. He has renounced Calvinistic and 
 Presbyterian theology, and repudiates it ; yet he loses in 
 that, the only chance of saving totally depraved children. 
 The Bible does not say that children are saved from total 
 depravity; but, "of such is the kingdom of Heaven." 
 
 He thinks that my views accord with Universal ists, 
 because I deny that all mankind die a moral death in 
 Adam — i. became dead in trespasses and in sins ; but 
 it is his theory that agrees with Universalism. They 
 quote, " As in Adam all die (morally), even so, in 
 Christ, shall all be made alive and thus prove their 
 system by his interpretation. And his Creed positively 
 proves Universal ivsm, where it says, " The offering of 
 Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
 and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both 
 original and actual : and there is none other satisfaction 
 for sin but that alone." — Art. xx, p. 87. Now, can he 
 think of any other sin ? Here, then, is complete redemp- 
 tion, e\^en for him who sins to the last moment. Those 
 who live in glass houses should not throw stones. 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 899 
 
 Tlie true doctrine is, that as in Adam all go down to 
 the grave, even so in Christ, all will have a resurrection ; 
 that is, as in Adam all die, even so, in Christ, shall all 
 be made alive. 
 
 What was his argument, that the workers of iniquity 
 had gone contrary to nature and become exceedingly 
 wicked ? When he came to the word " natural," he 
 wished to stop, but being under rapid headway, was 
 obliged to complete the sentence ? Without natural 
 affection!^'' said he; that is, they were very wicked, 
 being without natural afiection ; but where is the evil 
 of being without natural afiection, if nature be totally 
 depraved ? 
 
 What did he mean by affirming that, " mothers did 
 kill their children in heathen countries ;" but to prove 
 that mothers are totally depraved, and are inclined to 
 kill their children, inasmuch as they have been guilty 
 of those things in some part of the world '{ But all this 
 cruelty proceeds from human religions and men-made 
 Constitutions and Disciplines, invented by priests, who 
 make those mothers believe that God requires Uoodcmd 
 suffering to appease his wrath ; and those mothers do 
 this, not from inclination, but regarding it as a religious 
 duty. He says that Adam fell entirely from the grace 
 of God. Thank God we have Bibles which teach us 
 difi'erently ; that God did not give up his creatures, the 
 work of his hands, for the first ofi'ense. God's loving 
 kindness followed our first parents after the fall, and the 
 very promise of a Saviour, was the best proof that 
 Heaven could give, that man had not lost the favour of 
 his God. Gocl so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten son. This loxe preceded the gift, and was the 
 moving cause of it. 
 
 That infants are not sinners, is proved from the very 
 nature of things. As Paul says, Eom. ix, 11, ''The 
 children being not yet born, neither having done good 
 or evil." It is no more philosophic, or truthful, to say 
 that children sinned in Adam, than in Cain. 
 
400 
 
 C>:me nave :: 
 
 Sin is a transsressio 
 DO law. 
 aU, tbi. 
 We read. 
 
 ?inned all ; 
 - rat on farther ; 
 -rdfr done, 
 
 i out the blood ; 
 - -ere were able, 
 .. ±e Tover of Babel* 
 
 ''neology precisely, 
 .aw^ but where there is 
 ^ ' - _ . : and it is evident to 
 .aw, and hence no sin. 
 Jlau::. xix, io, ii, liien tliere were bronghr 
 unto him little children, that be should pnt his hands on 
 them, and pray ; aii aked them. But 
 
 Jesus said. Suffer 11: . forbid them not; 
 
 for of such is the kingdom of heaven not that those in 
 heaven are totally depraved I' : f re. 
 
 Jesus also said, " Except v erted, and become 
 
 as little children, (: ed.) ve shall not 
 
 enter into the kic. — Matt, xviii, 3. 
 
 rss we are like 
 e' t ye become 
 ?.t contin- 
 
 But, if children 
 them, the be^^e: 
 totally dep: 
 nallv, ve c;. 
 
 The' Bit 
 sinned anc 
 onr entire i 
 Godh: 
 chapte 
 
 "1 J 
 
 e aU 
 
 die. 
 
 ,nged. It was a Jewish error which 
 I will read a portion of Ezekiel, 
 
 :be LoKD came unto me," saying, 
 .: ye use this proverb concerning 
 ayiDg, The fatheis have eaten sour 
 * *^ ' ' lire set on edge I 
 
 TCid. ye shall not have 
 v.;r . - verb in Israel, 
 s are mine; as the soul of the fa- 
 al of the son is mine: the soul that 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 401 
 
 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful 
 and right, 
 
 6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither 
 hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of 
 Israel. 
 
 8 * * Hath executed tnie judgment between man 
 and man. 
 
 9 Ilath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my 
 judgments, to deal truly ; he is just, he shall surely live, 
 saith the Lord God. 
 
 10 If he beget a son tliat is a robber, a shedder of 
 blood, and that doeth the like to any of these things, 
 
 11 And that doeth not any of those duties, * * * 
 
 12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled 
 by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted 
 np his eyes to the idols; hath committed abomination. 
 
 13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken in- 
 crease: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath 
 done all these abominations ; he shall surely die, his 
 blood shall be upon him. 
 
 14 Xow, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father's 
 sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not 
 such like. 
 
 * ****** 
 
 17 * * He shall not die for the iniquity of his fa- 
 ther, he shall surely live. 
 
 18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, 
 spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is 
 not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his 
 iniquity. 
 
 ID Yet say ye. Why ? doth not the son bear the ini- 
 quity of the father ? Wiien the son hath done that which 
 is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and 
 hath done them, he shall surely live. 
 
 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall 
 not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the fatlier 
 bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the 
 S4 
 
402 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the 
 wicked shall be upon hira. 
 
 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that 
 he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do tliat 
 which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall 
 not die. 
 
 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they 
 shall not be mentioned unto him : in his righteousness 
 that he hath done he shall live. 
 
 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should 
 die ? saith the Lord God ; and not that he should return 
 from his ways, and live ? 
 
 24: But when the righteous turneth away from his 
 righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth accord- 
 ing to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, 
 shall he live ? All his righteousness that he hath done 
 shall not be mentioned: in his trespass, that he hath 
 trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
 shall he die. 
 
 25 Yet ye say. The way of the Lord is not equal. 
 Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal ? are 
 not your ways unequal ? 
 
 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his 
 righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in 
 them ; for his iniquity tliat he hath clone, shall he die. 
 
 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from • 
 his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that 
 which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 
 
 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all 
 his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely 
 live, he shall not die. 
 
 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord 
 is not ecpal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? 
 are not your ways unequal ? 
 
 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every 
 one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Kepent, 
 and turn yourselves from all your transgressions ; so ini- 
 quity shall not be your ruin. 
 
HUMAN DEPRAYITT. 
 
 403 
 
 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, where- 
 by ye haye transgressed ; and make you a new heart 
 and a new spirit: lor why will ye die, O house of Israel? 
 
 32 For I haye no pleasure in the deatli of him that 
 dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore, turn yourselyes, 
 and liye ye." 
 
 Matt, xyiii, 3, Jesus' blessing little children, and say- 
 ing of such is the kingdom of heayen,'' is in strict 
 accordance with this. 
 
 The temporal death of all is no proof of total deprayity, 
 since death has passed upon all, eyen upon those who haye 
 not sinned after the similitude of Adam's ti'ansgression. 
 They were depriyed of the tree of life in the garden, so 
 as to rise from this sinful world, to a better state ; for as 
 all die in Adam a physical death, so all in Christ shall 
 have a resuirection. Our common language is opposed 
 to this doctrine. 
 
 We say that a cruel person acts inhumanly ; but if 
 human nature were totally deprayed, they would act most 
 humanely, when they acted most crv.elly. 
 
 We expect love^ paternal, filial and fraternal affec- 
 tion, eyen of the unconyerted, which we should not. if they 
 are by nature inclined to eyil only, and that continually, 
 as my brother's creed says. 
 
 We expect respect to religion in the unconyerted, 
 which would be the blackest hypocrisy, if they were 
 totally deprayed, and inclined to eyil continually. 
 
 We see a religious feeling manifest in every nation, 
 howeyer heathen, which shows that they are not totally 
 deprayed. 
 
 We expect yirtue and moral worth in the unconyerted, 
 which could not be, if they were inclined to eyil only 
 and continually. 
 
 The Scriptures give no such meaning to the|Word Na- 
 ture, as they would attach to it. It is well known to 
 those familiar with the Scriptures that nature often sig- 
 nifies merely birth, nativity, custom, habit ; and not 
 always disposition, instinct, propensity. So in Eph. ii, 3, 
 
404 
 
 riscussio?c ox 
 
 the apostle eays, that some "were by nature the children 
 of wrath," using the Greek \^-ovd, p/tusei^ which signifies 
 disposition. 
 
 James i, 23, speaks of a man beholding his natural face 
 in a glass ; here it is geneseos^ from ginomai, birth, oi 
 nativity. But in the vast majority of cases nature is 
 spoken of as good, correct, cfcc. 
 
 Rom. i. :?6, ''For this cause God gave them up to 
 vile affections against nature {phisiken):^ Here, you 
 see, that it is set Ibrth as a great evil for God to give 
 men up to act contrary to nature ; but my brother would 
 count it a great blessing. 
 
 1 Cor. xi, 14, " Doth not even nature {fusos) itself 
 teach you that if a man have long liair. it is a shame 
 unto him C Here nature, though the word might signify 
 birth or origin, yet barely means the custom or practice 
 of the country. 
 
 Eom. ii, 14, "For when the Gentiles, which have 
 not the law, do by nature {pJiusei) the things con- 
 tained in the law: these having not the law, are a law 
 unto themselves, which show the work of the law written 
 in their hearts,*' <fcc. Thus, as Dr. Macknight testifies 
 on this verse, there is a light in nature itself, which is a 
 revelation from God to all nations ; so that the mind of 
 man is made to harmonize with the mind of God. But 
 how, if his nature were totally depraved, could it har- 
 monize with the mind of God ? or how could he do by 
 nature the things contained in the law ? Tlie apostle 
 here supposes that there exists in nature, a transcript of 
 the law of God. 
 
 Galatians ii, 15, "Who are Jews by nature, {p>Jnisei) 
 and not sinnei-s of the Gentiles.'* Here nature signifies 
 birth or education ; so also Eom. xi, 16. Jews are spoken 
 of as the natural, {pJnisiaina or 2^^iiSt?() branches of the 
 good olive tree ;*■ but how could they be thus naturally, 
 if nature be totally depraved ? 
 
 James iii. 6, " The tongue is said to be an unruly 
 member,** occ. " It setteth on fire the whole course of 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 405 
 
 nature," {geneseos^ race or descent) ; yet if nature were 
 totally depraved it would not need to be kindled into a 
 contlai2;ration. 
 
 2 Tim. iii, 3, To be " without natural affection," is 
 ranked among the very greatest evils and crimes, show- 
 ing that nature is not totally depraved. 
 
 Phil, ii, 20, Paul said, that he "sent Timothy, who 
 would naturally {genesiiis) care for the churches ;" but 
 this could not be if nature were totally depraved. So we 
 find that, despite of human dogmas, the preponderating 
 testimony from the Bible is favorable to nature. And why 
 not? Do not nature and revelation emanate from the 
 same God ? Is not the God of nature, the God of reve- 
 lation ? Sin is a transgression of the law ; but the de- 
 pravity of children, inherited through the flesh, is no 
 transgression of theirs, and can not be so construed as 
 to condemn them ; nor so magnified as to make their 
 nature totally depraved ; nor so guilty as to sink the 
 innocent spirit. Neither can that weakness of the flesh 
 be fully redeemed by a spiritual birth ; for that which is 
 born of spirit is spirit^ as truly as that born of flesh is 
 flesh. (Jo. iii, 6.) This weakness or depravity of the 
 liesh is treated at large by Paul, Rom. vii, 18-25, where 
 he says, '* I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwell- 
 eth no good thing," and speaks of a " law in his mem- 
 bers, which wars against the law of his mind ;" and 
 thanking God for the victory, calls it, a "keeping under 
 of the body ;" rejoicing in the hope still in the future, 
 of the ''^ redemption of the hody.'"' Now it seems to me, 
 that if saints can be holy and yet possess this infirmity 
 of the flesh, notwithstanding their conversion, that child-' 
 ren may also ; and lohen, and lohere, and hoio, saints 
 will be relieved of this infirmity of the flesh, children 
 also may be, and that will be when they receive the 
 resurrection hody, fashioned like unto the glorious hody 
 of Christ. Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the vic- 
 tory through our Lord Jesus Christ. The discrepancies 
 in the system of total depravity are glaring every way. 
 
406 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 They think that children must be regenerated to remove 
 this depravity, and yet, after the supposed regeneration, 
 there is found precisely the same disposition ; and I sug- 
 gest, that if tfie natural temperament of the child proves 
 it totally depraved, that same temperament, found in 
 older (saints ?) must prove them still totally depraved. 
 And if original corruption renders regeneration neces- 
 sary before conversion, that same original corruption 
 renders regeneration necessary after conversion. But 
 the child needs it not. It, when dying in infancy, is 
 "redeemed from the earth — redeemed from among 
 men," Rev. xiv, 3, 4, and receives a spiritual, immortal 
 body, raised in glory, fashioned like unto the glorious 
 body of Jesus Christ. But my brother thinks nothing 
 can be redeemed unless it be totally lost — that the gold 
 must be dross, or it can not be refined ; as well might we 
 say that we must be annihilated, or we cannot be saved. 
 Blessed be God, that for all, there is prepared the re- 
 demption which they need. 
 
 Mr. Flood's Fourth address, and Twenty-eighth speech : 
 I now proceed with the argument. I invite your 
 attention to Is. i, 5, 6, " The whole head is sick, and the 
 whole heart faint ; from the sole of the foot, even unto 
 the head, there is no soundness in it ; but wounds, and 
 bruises, and putrefying sores." I will read Clarke's 
 Commentary on this passage. 
 
 " Why should ye be stricken any more, ye will revolt 
 more and more ; the whole head is sick, and the whole 
 heart faint; from the sole of the foot even unto the 
 liead there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises 
 and putrefying sores ; they have not been closed, neither 
 bound up, neither mollified with ointment." 
 
 "There are some who explain it thus. Upon what limb 
 shall ye be smitten if you have defection, for already for 
 your sins have you been smitten upon all of them, so 
 that there is not to be found in you a whole limb, on 
 w^hich you can be smitten ; which agrees with what fol- 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITT. 
 
 40T 
 
 lows — from the sole of the foot, even to the head, there 
 is no soundness in him." 
 
 We remark, that no stronger or emphatical language 
 could be employed, than is here employed to express the 
 depravity of human nature; when the whole head is 
 sick, there must follow necessarily, an affection of the 
 whole system. The term Jieart is frequently used to rep- 
 resent affections. Here the Holy Gliost takes up its 
 residence, when it is made a temple fit to dwell in, but 
 when corrupt and polluted, the affections, as well as the 
 body — the temple of the Holy Ghost is polluted. ''From 
 the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no 
 soundness in it ; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying 
 sores; they have not been closed, nor bound up, nor mol- 
 lified with ointment." Here is doubtless, a reference to 
 sores which are filled with proud flesh. We could not 
 conceive of anythiug more expressive of absolute cor- 
 ruption ; hence, we say, it is entirely corrupt in all its 
 parts — entirely depraved. My friend can find it in Web- 
 ster. Hence, my brother's argument upon this was a 
 waste of words. There is no soundness in it. 2sow my 
 friend assumes that there is some soundness somewhere. 
 He knew a man somewhere, out of the Church, who was 
 highly respected for his integrity and veracity. How 
 far that man, as well as thousands of others, are under 
 restraining grace, no one can tell ; certainly it is not con- 
 fined to the Church of God. Ail good whatever, is from 
 God, for he is the source of all moral excellence. I 
 assume the position, that the entirely depraved, when 
 called into action, must act in accordance with their nature; 
 hence, the salv^ation of every individual who has violated 
 the law, has its foundation in God's grace, and my brother 
 has utterly and signally failed to answer it. But if this 
 man was a man of veracity, he was also a gentleman, and 
 hence would not call his opponent a liar. I suppose that 
 he will get up and state to this audience that he was 
 mad. I present my friend as a living evidence of entire 
 depravity, after he could laugh at the audience, and 
 
408 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 whisper in my ear that I had lied ; when in tlie days of 
 my youth, such a terra would have certainly been very 
 trying to poor, fallen human nature, and it would still be 
 so, but for a sense of duty — that I was a Christian 
 minister, and that I had a ministerial character, however 
 humble, and that I did not come to this place to make a 
 character, and to receive a standing at the hand of my 
 opponent for truth and veracity. I am speaking to my 
 brother, and I speak not boastingl)\ The Records of the 
 Ohio Annual Confjrence will tell what is, and what has 
 been, the standing of J. M. Flood ; he has been connected 
 with that body dui'ing fourteen years, and by their un- 
 solicited suffrages been called to hll every office in it, and 
 has he received this expression of confidence from his 
 brethren — then to be here vulgarly called a liar! 
 
 He has demonstrated, in the hearing of this audience, 
 that human nature is entirely depraved, and I offer a 
 prayer here, that in the case of my brother, this bent of 
 I'allen human nature may be restored, and may be for- 
 given in the end. My friend sets out with the statement, 
 that if infants are totallj^ depraved, then they would 
 necessarily have gone to hell, unless Christ had redeemed 
 them. I will ask my brother a question : If Christ had 
 not made atonement for man, and the human race had 
 been permitted to be propagated, whether Adam and his 
 posterity would not have gone to hell — if there be a hell, 
 and such a progeny could have been propagated — if such 
 would not have been their fate ? The atonement of 
 Christ had to be made to save infants ; and to save men 
 it was made to meet the case of infants, for it was not 
 possible that God could see fit to damn them. If God 
 had not seen fit to redeem man, he would have executed 
 condemnation upon the first transgressors. 1 could sooner 
 cease to worship the Almighty, than believe that he 
 could damn infants. God has made an unconditional 
 redemption — it saves and sanctifies through Jesus Christ, 
 and by the power of his grace — saves, sanctifies, and glo- 
 rifies it in heaven. If it dies in a state of infancy, it is 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITT. 
 
 409 
 
 not saved independently of the grace of God, and tlie 
 atonement of Christ. If it b;3 so, I assert its song will 
 not be united with the song of its parents ; and 1 turn 
 airaiu to those mothers, whose children have died and 
 left them in their infancy ; could you conceive that that 
 voice would be possessed of tiiat delight and charm, if 
 you supposed your infant child were denied the privilege 
 of joining the song of the redeemed, "unto Him who 
 has loved us, and washed us," &c ? It would be touching 
 a note infinitely below that which is touched by the 
 redeemed of Jesus Christ. My opponent admits, that 
 infants need something, but he does not state, however, 
 what it is. If they need something, I should like to 
 know what it is, and what need is supplied in Jesus 
 Christ. I assume, that they need every thing, and what- 
 ever that every thing implies, that tliey have it, uncon- 
 ditionally, through the efficacy of the atonement of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Overset it, if you will, sir. Does 
 my opponent argue, to an issue made by me ? Xo ! he 
 argues to an issue made by himself — a false issue — and 
 this is the only one he is willing to meet. There has not 
 been a single hour, from the conunencement of this 
 discussion, in which the way has not seemed clearer to 
 my view, and the very mists that my friend has made, 
 have been dissipated. I am happy, to be able to say, 
 toward the close of this discussion, that my spirit feels 
 as free, at this hour, as the bird of paradise. I do not 
 know when I have felt less restriction, in the advocacy 
 of the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel. My oppo 
 nent charges me with saying, that human nature is 
 totally depraved. I have not said so once. I use the 
 phrase, entirely depraved, and submit to the authority of 
 Webster; and I say, that we inherit an entirely depraved 
 nature, but b\* grace we inherit salvation by Jesus Christ, 
 and if we die in infancy, we inherit salvation, being in a 
 passive state. He thinks, parents would love their child- 
 ren less, if they thought they inherited an entirely 
 depraved nature ; but do not parents find it necessary to 
 35 
 
410 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 exercise restraints over the dispositions of their children, 
 and their tendency to evil ? How many parents have 
 seen their sons and daughters running in the path of 
 depravity and wretchedness ? and how many parents 
 have been thus brought to the grave, with sorrow ? And 
 ■when this has not been the case, it is by the restraining 
 influence of Clu'ist. and not because their dispositions are 
 not inclined to evil, and that continually. 
 
 Again, my brother Cjuotes the passage respecting sour 
 grapes, and several others, which relate to the fact, that 
 children should not be held responsible for the sins of 
 the parents. He says, I say, that when we are required 
 to put away the sins of our father, we can not do it. 
 I hold, that of ourselves we can do nothing, and our 
 sufficiency is of God. " I can do all things, through Jesus 
 Christ, which strengtheneth me." So when the son is 
 commanded to avoid the sins of his father, it is because 
 the grace of Jesus Christ is sufficient for him, through 
 the ability which Christ Jesus has afforded him, and that 
 he ought to put them away by tlie grace of Christ. We 
 now invite attention to the reading of Clarke, on the 
 passage, ^' The heart is deceitful above all things and des- 
 perately wicked." 
 
 Jeremiah, chap, xvii, note on verse 9th, (the heart is 
 deceitful). "The heart is supplanting — tortuous — full of 
 windings — insidious — lying ever at the catch — striving 
 to avail itself of eveiy favoring circumstance to gratify 
 its propensities to pride, ambition, evil desire, and cor- 
 ruption of all kinds." 
 
 That looks very much like entire depravity. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's Fourth reply, and Twenty-eighth 
 speech. 
 
 My friend wants me to prove, that the sinner can put 
 away sin without grace; but I have taken no such 
 position, and, therefore, there is no necessity of my prov- 
 ing it. He says I admitted, that he drew the wind 
 from my sails. Did If I did not know that I admit- 
 ted any such thing. On the nature of depravity, he 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 411 
 
 appeals to Webster, but Webster cannot help him, for 
 Webster is not illogical. He sajs the heart and head, 
 Isaiah i, 6, signitV the whole man — the whole nervous 
 system. If he will take the trouble to read the text, he 
 will find it refers not to a man^ but to a nation^ and is 
 not a physical, but a political corruption. Thus Clarke 
 comments: ''The whole head is sick, the king and priest 
 are equally gone away from truth and righteousness." 
 Do you not see, that my brother gave a wrong explana- 
 tion of the text ? His appeal to Clarke has quite failed. 
 
 On a careful examination of the texts that have been 
 quoted by my brother, I find that none of them speak of 
 man's nature, but of his actual transgression. My bro- 
 ther quoted Paul, who said : " The flesh lusteth against 
 the spirit," showing that there is some conservative good 
 in man, notwithstanding the tendency of the flesh to evil. 
 
 Romans i, 26, shows that these vile afiections were 
 against nature. If you commit sin, you sin against your 
 own conscience, and against your God ; against all the 
 good in heaven, and against yourself Sin disturbs the 
 mind, and makes us feel bad, very bad — and somebody 
 here feels very had noio. 
 
 My brother has constantly endeavored to confound the 
 general and extreme depravity of man, with the ques- 
 tion, as though I denied the sinfulness of our race. I 
 believe that as firmly as he ; and that you may have a 
 view of it, showing that the Bible does not picture it in 
 too vivid colors, let me read you a passage from Dick's 
 works. I think that my brother could hardly desire a 
 darker picture. 
 
 The following is a brief summary of the principal 
 punishments that have heen adopted oy men, in dif- 
 ferent coimtries^ for tormenting and destroying each 
 other. Capital punishment. — Beheading, strangling, 
 crucifixion, drowning, burning, roasting, hanging by the 
 neck, the arm, or the leg ; starving, sawing, exposing to 
 wild beasts, rending asunder by horses drawing opposite 
 ways, shooting, burying alive, blowing from the mouth 
 
412 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 of a cannon, compulsory deprivation of sleep, rolling on 
 a barrel stuck with nails, cutting to pieces, banging by 
 the ribs, poisoning, pressing slowly to death, by a weight 
 laid on the breast ; casting headlong from a rock, tearing 
 out the bowels, pulling to pieces with red hot pinchers, 
 stretching on the rack, breaking on the wheel, impaling, 
 flaying alive, cutting out the heart, &c., &c., &c. Pion- 
 ishments short of deaths have been such as the follow- 
 ing: Fine, pillory, imprisonment, compulsory labor at the 
 mines, galleys, highways, or correction house ; whipping, 
 bastinadoing, mutilation, by cutting away the ears, the 
 nose, the breasts of women, the tongue, the foot, the 
 hand, squeezing the marrow from the bones, with screws 
 or wedges, castration, putting out the eyes, banishment, 
 running the gauntlet, drumming, shaving off tlie hair, 
 burning on the hand or forehead, and many others of a 
 similar nature." — Dick's Philosophy of Keligion, Yol. i, 
 page 12G. 
 
 I now call your attention again, to some Scriptural and 
 philosophical arguments, against the doctrine of the total 
 depravity of our nature, when born into the world. 
 
 1. De'ut. ix, 12, and xxxii. 5, Moses says that some 
 had "corrupted themselves but this they could not have 
 done, if they were born totally depraved. Ec. vii, 29, 
 says that " God made man upright ; but they have sought 
 out many inventions." 
 
 2. Gen. v, 22, Enoch, who " walked with God," could 
 not have been totally depraved. 
 
 3. John the Baptist, miraculously inspired from the 
 very beginning of his existence, could not have been 
 totally depraved. 
 
 4. Is. i, 18, If our reason were totally depraved, God 
 would not say: " Come, let us reason together." 
 
 5. If we were totally depraved, good could not be ex- 
 pected, nor evil blamed, since all would be inclined 
 to evil only, and continually ; and hence, could no 
 more be blamed, than the brutes which act out their 
 nature. 
 
HUMAN DEPRATITT. 
 
 413 
 
 As the poet says : 
 
 " Let dogs delight to bark and bite. 
 
 For God has made tliein so ; 
 Let bears and lions growl and fight. 
 
 For 'tis their nature too ; 
 But children, you should never let 
 
 Such angry passions rise ; 
 Tour little hands were never made 
 
 To tear each other's eyes." 
 
 But if children are born totally depraved, and inclined 
 to evil, and that continually, this is just as true of them^ 
 as of hears and lions. 
 
 6. The principal texts depended upon to support this 
 doctrine, are home-made Scriptures, such as : 
 
 i^/r^^, Man is prone to evil, as the sparks fly up- 
 ward." The correct reading is, Job. v, 7, ^* Man is born 
 to trouble, as the sparks lly upward." 
 
 Second^ Christ was made in all points as we are, 
 sin excepted." The correct readiny is, Heb. iv, 14, 
 " was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." 
 
 7. 1 Cor. ii, 14. ''The natural man receiveth not of 
 the spirit of God." Natural man, here, signifies the 
 animal man^ as testified by Macknight. 
 
 8. Nature is good! and in peace and love, as a beau- 
 tiful river, it would ever flow onward toward the great 
 ocean of unbroken harmony ; but sin rises to obstruct its 
 passage, by opposing obstacles, which war on its peace, 
 and thus its progress is disturbed, as the even flowing 
 river, by the uneven rocky bed of the channel. Thus the 
 harmony of nature is destroyed by sin, and remorse takes 
 the place of sweet peace, showing sin to be a violation 
 of our nature. 
 
 9. Nature is Tiealing^ and soothing. Nature heals 
 the sore; heals the bruise; knits together the broken 
 bone. Nature very often heals in spite of the physician. 
 Nature is good. 
 
 10. Sin^ in destroying man, proves itself contrary to 
 his nature. 
 
 11. My brother thinks that man's sinning, is a proof 
 of total depravity. I challenge my brother to tell us how 
 
414 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 men would act, were God to produce a new race not 
 depraved, and place them in like circumstances with us. 
 
 12. The beautiful world we live in, with its balmy air, 
 and gushing fountains, and crystal streams, and blooming 
 forests, and diamond jetted sky, all go to prove that 
 man is not, by nature, totally depraved, else God would 
 have given him a world more appropriate. 
 
 13. It is a cruel theology which has taken the advan- 
 tage of the child's innocence, to represent it as totally 
 depraved. 
 
 14. Man's physical organization, shows that he is not 
 born totally depraved. AVere he born thus, then he would 
 be born with teeth, or tusls, instead of teeth ; and clav:s, 
 instead of hands, and instead of walking 'uprigJd in the 
 image of God. he would go on all-fours. 
 
 15. The poet has well said: 
 
 " Ifature aflFords, at least, a glimmering light. 
 The lines, tho' touched but faintly, are drawn right." 
 
 16. Were nature totally depraved, then we would 
 naturally Aaie every thing lovely^ and love every hateful 
 thing' ; but instead of this, we love virtue. Virtue is the 
 first, and sin is a contrivance which comes afterward. 
 
 17. My brother's method of preaching, in blaming the 
 sinner for not repenting, shows that he does not regard 
 him as totally depraved ; for if he were, and inclined to 
 evil only, and that contimialJy^v^Q might just as well call 
 upon the sparks to fly downward, or water to run up hill. 
 God's dealing with man at first, in promising him a 
 Saviour, is contrary to the supposition, that man was 
 totally depmved, 
 
 IS. Mankind living as social beings, in families, soci- 
 eties, cities, and nations, is proof of the absence of total 
 depravity, and that the poet's words are true : 
 
 " Two principles in human nature reign, 
 Self-love to urge, and reason to restrain.'' 
 
 19. Legislators — unregenerate men — such as Jefi*er- 
 60D, Franklin, Clay, and others, by their enactment of 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 415 
 
 laws to promote the good of the human family — by 
 discountenancing crime, show that they are not totally 
 depraved, and inclined to evil only, and that continually: 
 else they would make laws that we should lie, and 
 swear, and murder, and steal. 
 
 20. Fathers abiding with their families, and toiling 
 for their good, day by day, show that they are not totally 
 depraved, and inclined only to evil, and that continually. 
 Mothers watching over their children — ah ! can the 
 mother look at her smiling babe, and say, I believe that 
 it is totally depraved ? Mothers, instead of watching 
 over, would slay their children, if those mothers were 
 totally depraved. 
 
 21. We object to the doctrine of total depravity, as 
 calculated to lessen the love of parents for their children; 
 for if parents really believed this doctrine, they would be 
 forced to regard their children as little fiends or serpents, 
 and not as innocent — as young angels to be trained for 
 glory. 
 
 22. It never can be reconciled with the fact, that God 
 so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
 that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, &c. 
 For if we are all by nature totally depraved, there is 
 nothing to love ; all is totally depraved, nothing good, 
 nothing lovely, and we do not believe that God could 
 love sin, love corruption — love total depravity. 
 
 23. 1 have sometimes thought, that if no redemption 
 were provided for fallen angels — though I speak respect- 
 fully of the opinions of some who suppose that such 
 redemption has been provided — it was because they 
 became totally depraved. 
 
 24. If we were totally depraved, and inclined to evil 
 only, and that continually, this congregation would not 
 sit quiet a moment, but rise, with cursing and swearing 
 upon their lips, and fall to, to destroying, and devouring 
 each other immediately. 
 
 25. If we were totally depraved when born, we 
 could not go astray as soon as born, nor could the 
 
416 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 wicked wax worse and worse, if totally deprav^cd in the 
 start. 
 
 26. The circiuiistance of the Ninevites docs not show 
 total depravity, for Clirist says, that *' they were not as 
 bad as those who rejected the Gospel." — Matt, xii, 41. 
 
 27. The Sodomites were not totally depraved, for 
 Christ plainly shows, that they were better than the 
 wicked Jews. 
 
 28. The Samaritans were not totally depraved, for 
 God says, that the Jews were more abominable than 
 they, and that they were more righteous than the Jews. 
 Ezek. xvi, 52, 53." 
 
 29. If all were totally depraved, then there could be 
 found no perfect Job, (i, 1.) — no good Samaritan— no 
 Israelite in whom is no guile. — John i, 47. 
 
 30. Being dead in trespasses and sin does not prove 
 that we are totally depraved, any more than to be dead 
 to sin proves that we are perfect and infallible. Except 
 a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it remaineth 
 alone, &c. ; though it die, it is fiot entirely corrupt, but 
 still possesses a germ of life. So, also, Jesus says, " The 
 hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 
 John v, 25. And that this is a moral resurrection, is 
 proved by the following verse : '* Marvel not at this, for 
 the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their 
 graves shall hear his voice and come forth ; they that 
 have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they 
 that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna- 
 tion." 
 
 31. That mankind are depraved— very depraved — 
 there is no controversy between my brother and me. I 
 believe in. the general, universal depravity of our race, 
 as fully as he. 
 
 32. "The difference is, that he thinks that this is a 
 total depravity of our nature, inherited by natural gene- 
 ration from Adam ; while / think, that we destroy our- 
 selves by our own sins. 
 
HUMAN DEPRATITY. 
 
 417 
 
 Mr. Flood's closing address and Twenty-ninth speech : 
 This is my last speech on this subject. Mr. Summer- 
 bell quotes one or two authorities, which do not affect 
 the question of moral depravity; the opinion of a man 
 does not influence or affect the question of total depravity. 
 I refer you to Clarke, Benson, and Coke, {i) as evidence 
 that man, in his natural stale, in his fallen condition, is 
 not capable of discernment. 
 
 My brother inquires of me, if God should make or 
 create another class of beings, similar to the present race, 
 although not totally depraved, wherein they would differ, 
 in their moral conduct, from us ? Since he has no mate- 
 rial, wherewith to answer eight leading propositions, 
 which I have brought forward, it is very convenient to 
 bring this novel proposition forward, at this advanced 
 stage of the discussion. I recollect a quotation : 
 
 "Vain man, go teach Eternal "Wisdom how to rule. 
 Then drop into thyself, and be a Fool." 
 
 I should consider myself a fool, if I attempted to answer 
 all the queries of my friend ; I might, however, quote 
 Dr. Young: "Able to stand, though free to fall." From 
 my brother's remarks, on the sweetness of infancy, I 
 judge, he must be a father. I felt, as he gave expression 
 to those truths, a oneness of sentiment with him, and 
 visions of lovely infants perched upon the bowers of 
 paradise were presented to my mJnd ; and I thank God, 
 that they have a part in Him who hath loved iis, and 
 "washed us in his own blood I There is certainly some- 
 thing very delightful, in the contemplation of tlie love- 
 liness of infancy, and though, by natural generation, they 
 inherit a depraved nature, from their fountain-head being 
 depraved, yet they inherit the redeeming graces of the 
 Spirit of God, by the atonement of Jesus Christ, through 
 his merit, and thus they are heii-s to an immortal 
 destiny. 
 
 My brother insists on my saving children in a state of 
 entire depravity ! How my good friend could have 
 
418 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 drawn this conclusion from ray position. I can not tell ; 
 save them in their sins I I have assumed from the first, 
 that the child is not a sinner. "Where there is no law, 
 there is no transgression. I assume, that infants are not 
 saved in their depravity, but saved from all its conse- 
 quences and influences. There is no sinning in infancy, 
 positively ; infants stand in a justified relation. My 
 opponent says, if this be so. thus it must be with those 
 who have come to riper years. I understand justification 
 to be a work done for us, by virtue of what Christ hath 
 done for us; it is a forensic, or legal term. We are 
 regenerated by the operations of the Holy Ghost ; hence, 
 the term, ** born of God,*' ** born again,*' 6zc. All of 
 these expressions signity a radical, or thorough change ; 
 they are used in a high and holy sense, to represent the 
 ©Iteration of the grace within us. by which we are fitted 
 for a jjlace in heaven. 
 
 Xow, I admit that infants share all the benefits of 
 Christ's redemption ; but they are not subject to any law, 
 because they have not the capacity to be so. I am 
 pleased, that my brother should feel so good a spirit, 
 while with me. Cultivate this friendly feeling. 
 
 But all the propositions remain unscathed, unmoved ; 
 they have come out without even so much as the smell 
 of fire upon their garments I If we should be found 
 nearer togetlier, my brother will be found nearer to me ; 
 for I want it to be distinctly understood, that there has 
 been no approach on my piirt. I assure you, that it 
 would be much more cheering to my heart, to carry away 
 pleasanter feeling, than the noise and confusion of a 
 former evening, were calculated to produce. 
 
 1 have submitted eight different propositions : 
 
 First. Tiiat man, in his creation, was made upright, and 
 this I sustained by a number of texts. 
 
 Second. That man has fallen into sin and ruin. 
 
 Third. That all men, in their fallen condition, are 
 morally depraved. 
 
 Fourth. That human natme, in its fallen condition, is 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 419 
 
 entirely depraved ; which I supported by many texts 
 and direct proofs. 
 
 Fifth. That this depravity is manifested in various 
 ways ; as, 
 
 1. In a spirit of opposition and hatred to God. 
 
 2. By acts of disobedience and insubordination. 
 
 3. It is seen in indifference to God's authority, and 
 deeds of darkness. 
 
 4. It is shown in acts of base ingratitude and great 
 cruelty. 
 
 5. It is developed in deceit and hypocrisy. 
 
 Sixth. Tliat persons are only responsible lor actual 
 sins — sins of their own, not of others. 
 
 We noticed in this connection, that this inclination to 
 evil is early manifested in the life of the wicked. 
 
 Then, we drew some of the consequences necessarily 
 resulting from the doctrine of partial depravity : 
 
 1. If any part of man is not depraved, that part 
 stands in no need of redemption, and need not be 
 redeemed. 
 
 2. If that part of man's nature that is not depraved, 
 obtains heaven, it obtains it of right, and not by the 
 atonement of Jesus Christ. This, you will remember, 
 was sustained by evidence, and not a single argument 
 has been brought forward, that was not a natural 
 sequence. 
 
 Our seventh proposition, introduced some further 
 Scripture evidence, sustaining the doctrine of man's 
 entire depravity ; and we also quoted Dr. Clarke on the 
 subject. 
 
 Eighth. The relation of infants, to the law, is not the 
 relation sustained by actual transgressors, though they 
 inherit, by natural generation, an entirely depraved 
 nature, as the progeny of an entirely depraved parent- 
 age ; yet infants are passive in the fall, and passive in 
 the redemption by Christ. They can not possibly be the 
 subjects of the law, therefore, they are unconditionally 
 saved in Jesus Christ. In proof of this, I quoted Rom. 
 
420 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 iv, 15, and v, 13-18, to sliow that infants obtain salva- 
 tion upon tlie ground of Christ's atonement. 
 
 I have now presented to you the oround that has been 
 occupied in sui)port of these propositions, which in every 
 particuUir are distinct and conclusive; and I shall close 
 this argument by saying, " lie reckoned all under sin 
 that lie might have mercy upon all;" with reference to 
 those in the condition of infancy it is passive ; to those 
 who have become actual sinners, it is upon the condition 
 of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. "lie 
 that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he 
 that belie veth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
 wrath of God abideth in him." — John iii, 36. We have 
 here the testimony that faith is made the condition of 
 everlasting life. I thank God, tliat we are able to under- 
 stand the full invitation of the Gospel of Ciirist to the 
 perishing and lost, and if they reject it, eternal misery 
 will be their lot. It is for resisting Divine influence that 
 we complain of sinners : if God gave them no power to 
 reform, we should never blame them for not doing it, but 
 God has graciously given this ability. That spirit is of 
 God, and the J3ible says, that " when he comes he shall 
 convince the world of sin." Again, said Christ, "This 
 is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and 
 men love darkness rather than light;" Why? because 
 they are entirely depraved; for another reason — "because 
 their deeds w^ere evil." This is the cause of our fault- 
 finding with sinners ; it is their duty to receive and be- 
 lieve the Gospel. Christ is here to-day, and I would to 
 God he would fasten this truth upon their minds, that 
 sinners might feel his power, and receive the gospel invi- 
 tation. There is enough for each, enough for all, and 
 enough for evermore ; the great and small, the wise and 
 simple, black and white, bond and I'ree, are all alike in- 
 vited to share this benefit. And God, in his love, regards 
 the humblest slave that toils upon the Southern planta- 
 tion, and who crouches beneath the whip, as equal to the 
 highest man that occupies the highest throne in Europe ; 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 421 
 
 hence, we offer to you the fullness of the gospel invita- 
 tion. And thougii 3'Ou inherit an entirely depraved 
 nature, and have an inclination to evil, God gives 3'ou, 
 by his grace, the power to resist the evil and cling to the 
 good. It is of grace you have it, and you all possess it, 
 for there is a measure of tlie Spirit of God given to 
 every man ; God gives it that you may profit by it, not 
 that he may increase your agony, but tliat you may be 
 drawn to himself It is for this express purpose liis 
 Spirit is given, and if you resist it, you are guilty before 
 God, as were the Jews. 
 
 Let me conclude. I may see you no more, and I want 
 you to bear me record that I have dealt honestly, and 
 spoken the convictions of my mind and heart. I will 
 not question my brother's sincerity in what he has ad- 
 vanced, but I will say, that on this point I differ from 
 him honestly, and widely it may be. On this view of 
 moral depravity I hold, that when man fell, he fell entire, 
 in soul and body ; that he did die a spiritual death ; that 
 he was morally excluded from the divine tavor. It was 
 not till the promise of redemption was given, that the 
 favor of God was again lavished upon man ; he may now 
 draw coratbrt with the spirit of grace, thi'ough all afflic- 
 tions and trials. IIow complicated, how wonderful is 
 man ! Although he dies, yet dying he lives for ever ; 
 an angel's arm can not snatch him from the grave ; yes, 
 thanks to God, who giveth us the victory, myriads of 
 angels can not confine him there. The Lion of the tribe 
 of Judah will descend, and will thrust his arm into the 
 grave of sleeping humanity, and bring it up ; and I can 
 not tell, but that some of this audience may already have 
 the shadow of the sepulcher hanging heavil}- over their 
 brow. But be it so; there is a better land; there is a 
 higher and holier sphere, where human passions will 
 never be stirred ; there is a place where the pure and 
 blest will mingle in unceasing songs and anthems of 
 praise, world without end ! Are you not happy in the 
 contemplation \ Whatever of error may attach to any, 
 
422 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 it shall be dropped from those who have trusted in Christ, 
 and been faithful to the end, and have received him as 
 their hope and stay, and as their support to the end of 
 life. I hope and pray that God may grant this to be the 
 inheritance and blessed portion of every one in this 
 assembly. 
 
 Mr. Summerbell's closing reply, and Twenty-ninth 
 speech : 
 
 Kind friends — the closing time has arrived ; so all 
 things earthly must have an end. The things which are 
 seen are temporal, only the things not seen, are eternal. 
 Never a man lived but what this sentence closed his 
 history — he died! This is the last speech of our dis- 
 cussion — and in the same kind feeling in which we com- 
 menced, we close. 
 
 1. My brother says his leading propositions have not 
 been answered ; but you will be the better judges of 
 that — at least more impartial ! He yet thinks, that as 
 Cain was very bad, he must have been entirely depraved 
 by nature ; as well might he say, that as Abel was very 
 good, he must have been perfectly holy by nature. There 
 is just as much evidence that both were born perfectly 
 holy, as that both were born entirely depraved, and more, 
 for it is easier to conceive of the one falling into sin, than 
 of the other rising to holiness. 
 
 2. He states the propositions, which he has advanced 
 to prove the affirmative, that all men are entirely depraved 
 and inclined to evil continually, as follows : 
 
 First : " That God created man upright." On this 
 we agree^ hence there is no discussion on it. 
 
 Second: "That man has frllen into sin and ruin." 
 On this we agree, hence there was no discussion on it. 
 
 Third: "That all mankind, in their fallen condi- 
 tion^ are morally depraved." On this we are perfectly 
 agreed, as who would not be ? On this there is no 
 discussion. 
 
 Fourth: " That human nature, in its fallen condition, 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 423 
 
 is entirely depraved." On this one point, the only one 
 involving the point which he had to prove, he failed. He 
 brought many texts to prove that we were made upright 
 and have fallen into sin, and are morally depraved ; but 
 that human nature is entirely depraved by nature, he has 
 not proved by one solitary text. 
 
 Fifth : Hq illustrated it by showing that men opposed 
 God's law, were disobedient, ungrateful, cruel, &c. ; but 
 there was no discussion on these points, nor do they prove 
 the main ^''jproiJOsitionP His 
 
 Sixth: Was, "persons are only responsible for their 
 own sins." On this we are agreed, and hence have no 
 discussion. His 
 
 Seventh : Was, that " further evidence can be deduced 
 from Scripture, of the entire depravity of our nature." 
 That was his worh ; but not a single text has he brought 
 to prove it. 
 
 Eighth : " That infants inherit this depravity by natu- 
 ral generation,- from an entirely depraved parentage ; but 
 that as infants are passive in the fall, so they are not the 
 subjects of law, and are therefore, unconditionally saved 
 by Jesus Christ." But this he has not proved. 
 
 3. Pie says, that sin is not imputed where there is no 
 law ; and that the sinner is not blamed for any thing but 
 refusing to close in with the overture of mercy. But if 
 the sinner had a nature totally depraved and inclined to 
 evil, and that continually, he would have to change that 
 nature before he could accept the overtures of mercy. 
 My brother says he differs from me on this doctrinal point 
 " very widely," just as widely as I differ from him ; but 
 do you have charity for me, brother, and I will have 
 charity for you, and feel very happy in the difference. 
 
 4. He believes that we are sinners by nature ; but I 
 believe that some were " Jews hy nature^ and not sin- 
 ners of the Gentiles." — Galatians ii, 15. 
 
 5. He believes that children are totally depraved by 
 natural generation, but are regenerated in some way in 
 their infancy. Strange that God should justify them, if 
 
424 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 totally depraved, -without faith or repentance. I believe 
 with Jesus, that, ''of such is the kingdom of heaven," 
 and deny tlie total depravity. 
 
 6. He saj's that we are all en;^endered in sin, but that 
 infants that die are regenerated. If all are not, how 
 does he know that those that die are? and if all are, then 
 there is no such natural depravity in the world ; for we 
 were all infants once, and regenerated then,* 
 
 7. He thinks that we are born totally depraved ; but 
 I can not believe it. I believe that we are born under 
 the beneficent smile of our heavenly Father. 
 
 8. 1 admit the sinfulness of the human race, and 
 mourn over it: that without Jesus Christ and his salva- 
 tion it is hopelessly lost ; but I regard Jesus as an All- 
 sufficient Saviour. Upon this point we are entirely 
 agreed. 
 
 9. He says that we are depraved by nature. I say 
 that we are depraved by practice. 
 
 10. He has acknowledged that by entirely he meant 
 totally; and yet contends that children are not totally, 
 but that they are entirely, depraved. 
 
 11. He says that this entire depravity comes by actual 
 transorression, contrary to his discipline. Art. III. which 
 says, tliat it is "not in following Adam as the Pelagians 
 do^ vainly talk,'' but that " it is naturally engendered of 
 the ofispring of Adam." 
 
 12. I have proved that if human nature were entirely 
 depraved, so tliat there was nothing about it that was not 
 sinful ; tliat then righteousness, being contrary to our 
 nature, would destroy it as surely as the tree would b2 
 destroyed by removing it from its native soil, and plant- 
 ing it upon the sterile rock. 
 
 13. I have proved that the texts which relate to man's 
 depravity, refer to his own sins, and not those of others. 
 
 14. He believes that we sinned in Adam before we 
 were born ; but I believe with Paul, Romans ix, 11, that 
 "the children being not yet born had done neither good 
 nor evil." 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 425 
 
 15. I proved that parents would not, and could not, 
 love their children, if both were totally depraved. 
 
 16. I showed that if mothers were totally depraved, 
 that they would then all strive to kill their children, in- 
 stead of loving them. He admitted the fact, by referring 
 to Hindoo mothers casting their children into the Ganges, 
 &c. ; thus admitting it to be the mother's nature, on his 
 theory, to kill her children ! 
 
 17. I proved that religion is natural to man, and that 
 we expect the young to conform to religion — to act reve- 
 rently in the house of God, &c., which, were they totally 
 depraved by nature, would be useless and hypocritical, 
 and encouraging hypocrisy for us to ask them to do so. 
 
 18. I proved that, if there were nothing in man but 
 total depravity, that then God could not love him without 
 loving total depravity. 
 
 19. He asserted that man had entirely fallen from 
 grace ; but to my demand of, how he could be saved ? 
 he referred to the gift of the Saviour, as though that 
 were not proof of grace already existing. 
 
 20. I proved to him that if man were totally depraved 
 and fallen from grace, that God could neither love him, 
 nor give him a Saviour. 
 
 21. My friend was sustained in his argument only 
 by Clarke, and other human authorities, whose creeds 
 taught total depravity; and hence they were ex parte 
 witnesses. 
 
 22. On his best argument, the glass of water, I showed 
 that the nature of water was not changed, but only the 
 water in the tumbler was tainted, and that this could be 
 restored, the nature of the water remaining unchanged. 
 
 23. When my brother appealed to the Moderators, 
 they decided against him ; and when he was dissatisfied 
 with their decision, I left it to a minister on his own side 
 of the house, and he decided against him. 
 
 24. My brother, by the aid of the Scripture Manual^'* 
 has only sustained the doctrine of the general sinfulness 
 and depravity of man, in which we agree. 
 
 36 
 
426 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 25. I quoted him the text, "Thou wqlQ perfect in thy 
 ways from the day in which thou wast created, until 
 iniquity was found in thee to which he has not re- 
 sponded at all. 
 
 26. To my numerous proofs, he has given no atten- 
 tion, professing that he would be foolish to ; in which we 
 agree. 
 
 27. I have showed that his theory was contrary to the 
 plain teachings of the Bible, and that the texts quoted in 
 support of it, were misapplied. 
 
 28. I have showed that his theory is contrary to 
 observation and natural philosophy, and that mine is 
 agreeable to both, and proved by our experience. 
 
 And now, my friends, in closing up this discussion, 
 I shall leave you to judge who has proved his position. 
 I do not wish to say to you positively, that I claim every 
 thing over my brother. I confess, however, that I feel 
 very easy, as to what will be your decision. I feel very 
 much pleased this day. I am not aware, that in any day 
 of all my life, I have felt happier, or better pleased. 
 
 There has been, on the whole, a manifestation of a 
 general good feeling throughout the discussion, and I 
 feel happy in Jesus Christ, that it has been so. Not- 
 withstanding some few disagreeable manifestations of 
 feeling, I am conscious that a great truth has been sus- 
 tained^ and that a great error has received a shock. I 
 would rather we had loved a little more uniformly, but 
 that I have ever been angry, I do not remember. In the 
 reminiscences of my mind, I shall long have pleasant 
 associations connected with this debate. I have no ill- 
 will for my brother. I love the Methodist Society; both 
 my father and mother were once connected with it ; I 
 have labored with them j I have preached in their pulpit, 
 
i 
 
 HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 427 
 
 and I know all about their Society and their Doctrine. 
 When I was invited here, it grieved me that I was to 
 meet a Methodist Protestant brother. I would have pre- 
 ferred to have met a minister of one of the older, and, 
 if you will allow the expression, one of the crustier sects ; 
 but my brother's creed was the same as theirs, and I 
 trust that the result will be good. 
 
 If I have, during this discussion, said any thing that 
 would convey an idea of hostility to my brother or his 
 Church, it was not intentional, and you will please not 
 to understand me so. I would wish to follow the meek 
 and lowly Jesus. I think a Christian should be gentle 
 and forgiving^ and I would desire in all things to sus- 
 tain 2i.pure Christian character^ and endeavor to think 
 better of my brother, than of myself ; hence, I have not 
 called my brother by any unseemly epithets. It is better 
 we should be like Christ; or if we can not be wholly free 
 from sin, yet, if we sin, that it may not be without mourn- 
 ing for it, and feeling sorrowful on account of it. 
 
 You will not fail, I think, to see a difierence between 
 my doctrine and my brother's ; as great a difference, as 
 there is between the life of a Christian, and the life of 
 one who is not. Yet, I well know, that it is not a mere 
 technical creed, that makes a man a Christian. Paul 
 says of the Christian gi-aces, 1 Cor. xiii, 13, "And now 
 abideth faith, hope, charity, these three ; but the greatest 
 of these is charity." Charity is greater than faith ! 
 greater than hope ! we must have love for our fellow- 
 beings. "We may manifest great devotion to principles 
 that may be at stake ; but if we have not charity, it 
 amounts to nothing. The errors which we see and con- 
 demn in others, we must learn to shun ourselves. The 
 
428 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Christian life is the only one worth living for ; perhaps, 
 you have tried it, if you have, go on. If you have not, 
 commence ; learn it by practical experience. Jesus said : 
 " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doc- 
 trine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my- 
 self;'' we must do his will, if we would understand his 
 religion. It is only by doing his will, that we can learn 
 his doctrine. '-''The mystery of godliness is learned 
 by practicing godliness. It is thus we learn how to act ; 
 how to pray ; how to love ; and how to be kind to each 
 other, by practicing the great virtues of religion. We 
 should, as genuine Christians, strive to think, and to feel 
 and to act like Christ, that the wicked may say they 
 have been with Jesus, and learned of him, because they 
 see that we are like him. Let us study over our Bible, and 
 on our knees, every day of our lives, strive to attain to 
 its celestial meaning. Parents, be kind to your children, 
 not provoking them to wrath ; but training them up in 
 the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. Children, 
 love your parents, obey them, reverence them, and great 
 shall be your reward ; the first commandment, with pro- 
 mise, is : " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy 
 days may be long in the land, which the Lord thy God 
 giveth thee.'' "We shall soon pass away from this earth, 
 and all its trials. My brother and I may never meet 
 again on earth. I attended a debate in Illinois, in which 
 Mr. Phelps and Mr. Barr took part, and in which I be- 
 came a principal ; that very autumn the Gospel Herald 
 announced the death of Mr. Phelps, and Mr. Barr, in the 
 same number ; they did not live to see another year. 
 When we think of these things, it should lead us to pre- 
 pare our minds for our own end, for we may never live 
 
HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 
 
 429 
 
 to see aD other summer. In reference to this debate, I 
 admit that we have not, at all times, maintained that 
 standing before you, that you might have desired ; but 
 remember, that to err, is liuman ; but to forgive, is di- 
 vine. We will see who are divine^ as well as who are 
 human^ by seeing who are most ready to forgive. And 
 when the scenes of time are passed, I hope to meet you all 
 again, where your eyes will never grow dim with tears — 
 where the Lamb will gird himself, and serve us on the 
 other side of Jordan — where there will be no contention, 
 but where we shall join with the angels in ascribing 
 glory, and honor, dominion, wisdom, riches, and strength, 
 and thanksgiving to Him that sitteth upon the throne, 
 and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. 
 
 I thank this audience for the patience and attention 
 with which they have listened to our remarks, and for 
 the kindness they have manifested, in inviting us to their 
 homes. With true Christian love have they greeted us. 
 May God bless them for it ; may the blessing of heaven 
 rest upon this place, and may you and your children be 
 made recipients of the saving grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 And to you, gentlemen Moderators, who have borne 
 with us, when, perhaps, you might have felt it to be your 
 duty to interfere ; for your patience I thank you, and 
 may God bless you — may he keep you in his love ; and 
 may you never have to say that your confidence in the 
 great truths of Christianity has been shaken by this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 And to our friends, the Keporters, who have day by 
 day been recording our words, I render my thanks. May 
 God, in his great goodness, abundantly bless you. And 
 
430 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 now I must bid you all farewell ; may God go with you 
 to your homes, and prosper you in your undertakings. 
 May the peace of God be upon you, and may his face 
 shine upon you ; may the light of his countenance ever 
 illuminate your path. And when we have passed from 
 the scenes of time, bidding adieu to the sorrows of life 
 and its last trials, may we not look back with sorrow or 
 regret; but with the pleasing reflection that we have 
 fought a good fight, and finished our course, so that we 
 may receive the crown prepared for the faithful in Christ 
 Jesus. Farewell. 
 
 END OF THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Mr, Flood desired to say a few words. 
 
 I return my thanks to you, gentlemen Moderators, 
 for the disinterested manner in which you have presided 
 over our deliberations, which has left not the slightest 
 occasion to complain. To these gentlemen, the Report- 
 ers, I return my thanks. They Lave certainly been most 
 attentive in taking a record of our proceedings, and from 
 an opportunity I have had of judging, from a transcrip- 
 tion of a sermon of mine, preached last Sabbath, they 
 will give us a strictly correct report — which I am happy 
 in anticipating. To this large and attentive audience, I 
 return my thanks. It may be that, in the providence of 
 God, it will be my privilege, at some future time, to pre- 
 
ADDENDA. 
 
 431 
 
 sent to you the glorious doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, 
 for which I have here contended in the character of 
 a preacher, ratiier than of a debater. I shall leave here 
 with the kindest feelings and wishes for the good of all, 
 and would offer to heaven a prayer that its choicest 
 blessings may rest upon you and your children. 
 
 The Modeeatoks. — Mr. Griffin, (Christian) one of the 
 Moderators said, that he felt very much pleased in the 
 happy termination of the discussion. He believed that 
 there was a geneml kind feeling existing among all par- 
 ties ; and that the Discussion, as a whole, had no tendency 
 to widen the difference between the contending parties, but 
 rather to unite them ; and hoped that we might all strive 
 for that love and union which would promote the cause 
 of Zion. He alluded to the happy unanimity which had 
 existed among the Moderators upon all questions sub- 
 mitted to them ; and of the intimate acquaintance which 
 he had formed with them, by being associated with them 
 in the Board, which he should ever remember with pleas- 
 ing recollections. 
 
 Mk. Fowler (Methodist Protestant) united with Mr. 
 Griffin in expressing the same sentiments. He had never 
 seen a discussion conducted with so uniform Christian 
 feeling, and he thought that this would at least teach the 
 people that we could discuss our differences in love. He 
 should long remember the scenes with pleasure. He had 
 formed an acquaintance with brother Summerbell some- 
 time previous, and he was very happy in the renewal of 
 that acquaintance on this occasion ; and wherever our 
 
432 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 lots might be cast on earth, he hoped that we might one 
 day meet in heaven. 
 
 On motion, The thanks of the Congregation was ten- 
 dered to the Speakers, which terminated the proceedings. 
 
 The congregations were usually large, and much of 
 the time very much crowded. All the meetings for dis- 
 cussion were opened with prayer, and a general religious 
 interest pervaded the whole. 
 
 BENN PITMAN, 
 lie'poTteT . 
 
AFPLEGATE &. COMPANY, 
 
 No. 43 UAIN STREET, CINCINNATI. 
 
 In addition to a large and vanea assortment of 
 
 School, Classical, Theological and Miscellaneous Books, 
 
 which they have constantly on hand, publish a series of 
 
 VALUABLE STANDARD WORKS, 
 
 suitable for the family circle, as well as public libraries. 
 
 At this time, when the press teems so abundantly with ephe- 
 meral literature, the thinking mind experiences a need of more 
 substantial aliment ; of something which shall at the same time 
 furnish not only enjoyment for the present, but for after thought ; 
 something from the perusal of which, one can arise a wiser, if not 
 a better man : and among their publicalions, tliey flatter them- 
 selves such books will be found. It is their aim to select such 
 works, the intrinsic worth of which will cause them to be sought 
 after bv enlightened and discriminating minds, and as worthy 
 of gracing the shelves of their libraries. 
 
 Among their publications may be found the following, to 
 which they would respectfully invite attention. To these it ia 
 their intention to add the best works of the standard Historical 
 and other authors, and they trust that tlieir selections will be 
 such as to entitle them to a liberal share of the patronage of the 
 book-buying public. 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 DR. ADAM CLARKE'S COMPLETE COMMENTAEY 
 ON THE OLD AND HEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
 Willi a portrait of tlie author, engraved expressly for 
 ^is edition, accompanied with Maps, &c. Plain and em- 
 bossed gilt. 
 
 From the Nashville ani Louisville Christian Advocate. 
 It would be difficult to find any contribution to Sacred 
 Literature that has attained to a higher rank than the 
 Commentaries of Dr. Adam Clarke. Whether regarded 
 as a pro iigy of human learning, or as a monument of 
 what perseverencc and industry, within the compass of a 
 single lifetime, can accomplish, it will long continue to 
 challenge the admiration of men as a work of unrivalled 
 merit. It is a treasury of knowledge, in the ac; umula- 
 tion of which, the an'Jior seems to have had no purpose 
 in view but the apprehension of truth ; not to sustain a 
 particular creed, but the apprehension of truth for truth's 
 own sake, restrained in the noble pursuits of no party 
 tenets by no ardor for favorite dogmas. It is difficult to 
 conceive of a con.plete library without this valuable work, 
 and yet alone of itself, it affords to its possessor no mean 
 yariely of entertainment. Besides forming a moderate, but 
 clear elucidation of the true meaning of tlie Sacred Word, it 
 abounds with illustrations in science, tlie literature of all 
 ages, and the history of m11 times and all countries ; and as 
 a lexicon tor the eXj .>sition of abstruse phrases, of difficult 
 terms, and the true gt nealogy of words of doubtful in: port, 
 it immeasurably surpasses all similar works of the age." 
 
 DE. ADAM CLARKE'S COMMEIJTAEY ON THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 2 vols, super-royal llvo. Plain and embo?;sed gilt. 
 
 The increasing demand for Dr. Clarke's Commentary 
 on the y^w Testament, has induced us to issue an edition 
 on superior paper, large clear type, handsomely and sub- 
 stantially bound, containing 1978 pages, with a portrait 
 of the author. 
 
APPLEGATE CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOilAS DICK, LI D 
 
 1 1 vols, in 2 ; containing An Essay on the Iniprovemenl 
 of Society ; The Philosophy of a Fu[ure State ; The Phi- 
 losophy of Religion ; The Mental Illumination and Moral 
 Improvement of Mankind ; An Essay on the Sn and E\il8 
 of Covetousness ; The Christian Philosopher, or Science 
 and Religion; Celeciial Scenery, illustrated; Sideral Hea- 
 vens, Planets, etc. ; The Practical Astronomer; The Solar 
 System, its Wonders ; The Atmosphere and Atmospherical 
 Phenomena, <fec. Illustrated with numerous enoravinors 
 and a portrait. 2 vols, royal 8vo. Plain and embossed 
 gUt. 
 
 This edition is printed from entirely new plates, contain' 
 ing the recent revisions of the author, and is the only com- 
 plete edUion published in the United States. 
 
 " Dick's Works. — Those who read at all, know both 
 tlie name of Dr. Dick and the work itself now reprinted. 
 It has long found acceptance with the pubhc." — Preshy- 
 terian Review, Edinhurg. 
 
 "We hail this remarkably cheap and greatly improved 
 edition of Dr. Dick's admirable and highly pc pular Works. 
 It it is a real love to the millions to be able to purchase 
 such an excellent work for so inconsiderable n cost. We 
 earnestly recommend this work to all our readers, and es- 
 pecially to all who desire to store their ntinds with gene- 
 ral information.'' — Wesley an Associated Magazine, London. 
 
 ** Eleven different works are embraced in these vol- 
 umes, making it an edition full ? id complete. The range 
 of subjects embraced in these S' veral essays and scientifie 
 treatises is varied, are all highjy important, and of prac- 
 tical utility to mankind generally. These characteristics 
 of Dr. Dick's writings, while they render them perma- 
 nently valuable, insure for them also a wide circula'ioa 
 among ail classes of readers." — Presbyterian of the West. 
 
APPLEGATE & CO/S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 ROILIN'S ANCIENT HISTORY. 
 
 The Ancient History of the Carthagenians, Assyrians, 
 Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Grecians and Macedo- 
 nians, including a History of the Arts and Sciences of the 
 Ancients, with a Life of the Author. 2 vols, royal 8vo. 
 Plain and embossed gilt. 
 
 *'A new edition of Rollin's Ancient History has just 
 been issued by Applegate & Co. The value and impor- 
 tance of this work are universally acknowledged. Every 
 private library is deficient without it; and it is now fur- 
 nished at so cheap a rate, that every family should have 
 it. It should be placed in the hands of all our youth, as 
 infinitely more instructive and useful than the thousand 
 and one trashy pubhcations with which the country is 
 deluged, and which are so apt to vitiate the taste, and ruin 
 the minds of young readers. One word more in behalf of 
 this new edition of Rollin : It may not be generally known 
 that in previous English editions a large and interesting 
 portion of the work has been suppressed. The deficien- 
 cies are here supplied and restored from the French edi- 
 tions, giving the copy of Messrs. Applegate & Co. a supe- 
 riority over previous English editions." — Western Recorder , 
 
 "A superb edition of this indispensable text and refe- 
 rence book is published by Messrs. Applegate & Co. 
 The work in this form has been for some years before the 
 public, and is the best and most complete edidon pub- 
 lished. The work is comprised in two volumes of about 
 600 pages each, containing the prefaces of Rollin and the 
 ** Histoiy of the Arts aii i Sciences of the Ancients, which 
 have been omitted in most American editions." — Spring- 
 field Bepuhlic. 
 
 ** Tlie work is too well known, and has too long been a 
 favorite, to require an}' commendation from us. Though 
 in some matters more recent investigations have led to 
 conclusions different from those of the Author, yet his 
 general accuracy is unquestionable." — West. Chris. Adv, 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 MOSHEIM'S CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 Ancient and Modern, from the birth of Christ to the 
 Eighteenth Century, in which the Rise, Progress, and Varia- 
 tions of Church Power are considered in their connection 
 with the state of Learning and Philosophy ; and the Politi- 
 cal History of Europe during that period, continued up to 
 the present time, by Charles Coote, LL. D. 806 pages, 
 1 vol.; quarto, spring back, marble edge. 
 
 From the Masonic Retkxjc. 
 
 This great standard history of the Church from the birth of 
 Christ, has just been issued in a new dress by the extensive pub- 
 lishing house of Applegate «fc Co. J^othing need be said by us 
 in relation to the merits or reliability of Mosheim's History : it 
 has long borne the approving seal of the Protestant world. It 
 has become a standard work, and no public or private library is 
 complete without it ; nor can an individual be well posted in th« 
 history of the Christian Church for eighteen hundred years, 
 without having carefully studied Mosheim. We wish, however, 
 particularly to recommend the present edition. The pages are 
 in large double columns ; the type is large and very distinct, and 
 the printing is admirable, on tine while paper. It is really a 
 pleasure to read such print, and we recommend our friends to 
 purchase this edition of this indispensable work. 
 
 From the Telescope, Dayton, O. 
 
 This work has been placed upon our table by the gentlemanlj 
 and enterprising publishers, and we are glad of an opportunity 
 to introduce so beautiful an edition of this standard Church his- 
 tory to our readers. The work is printed on beautiful white 
 paper, clear large type, and is bound in one handsome volume. 
 No man ever sat down to read Mosheim iu so pleasing a dress. 
 "What a treat is such an edition to one who has been studying 
 this elegant work in small close print of other editions. 
 
 From Professor Wrightson. 
 
 Whatever book has a tendency to add to our knowledge of 
 God, or the character or conduct of his true worshipers, or that 
 
 Eoints out the errors and mistakes of former generations, must 
 ave an elevating, expanding, and purifying influence on the 
 human mind. Such a work is Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. 
 Like " RoUin's History of the Ancients," it is the standard, and 
 is too well known to need a word of comment. 
 
APPLEGATE k GO 'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 GATHERED TKEASURES ESOJI THE MINES OF 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 Contaiuing Tales, Skeicbes, Anecdotes, aiul Gems of Thought, 
 Literary, Moral, Pleasiu^ and In&truciivu. iUusU-ated with 
 Steel plates. 1 vol. octavo. Eniboised. 
 
 To furnish a volume of mi.-^cellaneou.s literature both pleasing 
 and instructive, has been the ob^eot of the editor in compiling 
 this work, as well to supply, to so.ne exient, at least, the place 
 tljat is now occupied by publications which few will deny are of 
 a questionable moral tendency. 
 
 It has been tlie intention to imke this volume a suitable travel- 
 ing and fireside companion, profitat>ly enga^^ing the leisure mo- 
 ments of the former, and adding an utidifional charni to the 
 cheerful glow of the latter; to blend amusement with instruc- 
 tion, pleasure with profit, and to p esent an extensive garden of 
 Tigorous and u.seful plants, and beautiful and fragrant flow.-rs, 
 among which, perchance, there may be a few of inferior worth, 
 though none of utter inutility. Wliiie it is not exclusively a re- 
 ligious work, yet it contains no article that may not be read by 
 the most devoted Christian. 
 
 From the Cincinnati Diily Times. 
 
 This is certainly a book of rare merit, and well calculated for 
 a rapid and general circulation. Its contents present an exten- 
 sive variety of subjects, and these not only carefully but judi- 
 ciously selected, and arranged in appropriate departments. Its 
 contents have been highly >poken of by men of di>tinguished 
 literary ac'imeu, both editors and ministers of various Christian 
 deuoraiuations. We ciieerfully recommend it. 
 
 Gatheeed Tre.aslres from the Mines of Liter.atlee. — "One 
 of the most interesting everyday books ever published Like the 
 Spectator, it may be perused again and again, and yet afford 
 •omething to interest and amuse the rea-ier. Its varied and choice 
 Selections of whatever is beautiful or witty, startling or amus- 
 ing, can not fail to aflford rich enjoyment to minds of every char- 
 acter, and a pleasant relaxation from more severe and vigorous 
 reading." 
 
 Gathebkd Treasures — "A choice collection of sliort and in- 
 teresting articles, comprising selections from the ablest authors. 
 Unlike voluminous works, its varied selections aflford amusement 
 for a leisure moinent, or entertaiujnent for a winter eveiiijig It 
 is alike a companion for the railroad car, the library and parlor, 
 sad never fails to iuttrest its reader." 
 
APPLEGATE &; CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 TcE SPEC - A OR. 
 
 1 vol. royal 8vo, 750 pages, with a portrait of Addi- 
 son. Plain and embossed gilt. 
 
 The numerous calls for a coivjylete and cheap edition of 
 this valuable work, have induced us to newly stereotype U, 
 in this form, corresponding in style and price with our 
 other books. Its thorough revisions have been committed 
 to competent hands, and will be found complete. 
 
 From ike Central Christ'an Herald. 
 
 " One hundred and forty years ago, when there were 
 no daily newspapers nor periodicals, nor ch( ap fictions for 
 the people, the ISpectatoii had a daily circulation in Eng- 
 land. It was witty, pithy, tasteful, and at times vigoious, 
 and lashed the vices and follies of the age, and inculcated 
 many useful lessons which would have been disregarded 
 from more serious sources-. It was widely popular. It 
 contains some very excellent writing, not in the spasmodic, 
 moon-struck style of the fine writing of the present day, 
 but in a free, graceful and flowing manner. It used to be 
 considered essential to a good st} le and a knuwledge of 
 Belles-Lettres to have studied the Spectator, and we are 
 certain our age is not wise in the selection of some of 
 the substitutes which are used in its stead. It should 3'et 
 be a parlor volume, which should be read with great profit. 
 
 *' But we do not design to criticise the book, but have 
 prefixed these few facts for the information of our readers 
 to a no:ice of a new ediiion of (he work bv Messrs. Apple- 
 gate tfe Co. It is entirely of Cincinnati manufacture, and 
 is in a style very creditable to the enterprising house 
 which has brought it out." 
 
 From ih" Cincinruiti Commercial. 
 " Appleoate & Co., 43 Main street, have just published, 
 in a handsome octavo volume of 750 pages, one of the 
 very best classics in our langUHge. It would be super- 
 flu()us at this day to wri'e a line in commendation of this 
 tv-ork. The wikings of Addison are imperishable, and 
 will continue to charm youth and age while language lasts,* 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 PLUTARCH'S LIVES. 
 
 Witli Historical and Critical Notes, and a Life of Plu- 
 tarch. Illustrated with a portrait. Plain and embossed 
 gilt. 
 
 This edition has been carefully revised and corrected, 
 and is printed upon entirely new plates, stereotyped by 
 ourselves, to correspond with our library edition of Dick*t 
 Works, &c. 
 
 From the Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate. 
 " Plutarch's Lives. — This great work, to which has 
 long since been awarded the first honors of literatute, is 
 now published complete in one volume by Messrs. Apple- 
 gate & Co., of Cinciijjati, and offered at so low a price as 
 to place it within the reach of all. This is a desideratum, 
 especially in this age of 'many books.' Next in impor- 
 tance to a thorough knowledge of history, and in many 
 respects fully equal to it, is the study of well authenti- 
 cated biography. For this valuable purpose, we know of 
 no work extant superior to the fifty lives of Plutarch. It 
 is a rare magazine of literary and biographical knowledge. 
 The eminent men whose lives compose this work, consti- 
 tute almost the entire of that galaxy of greatness and 
 brightness, which stretches across the horizon of the dis- 
 tant past, and casts upon the present time a mild and 
 steady luster. Many of them are among the most illus- 
 trious of the earth.'* 
 
 FrojTi the Ladies' Repository. 
 ** It is a better piece of property for a young man to 
 own, than an eighty acre lot in the Mississippi Valley, or 
 many hundred dollars in current money. We would 
 rather leave it as a legacy to a son, had we to make the 
 choice, than any moderate amount of property, if we were 
 certain he would read it; and, we are bound to add, that, 
 were we now going to purchase a copy, this edition would 
 have the preference over ever}' other of which we havn 
 my knowledge." 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 KOTES ON THE TWENTY-IIVE ARTICLES OF RE 
 LIGION, as received and taught by Methodists in thi 
 United States, 
 
 In which the doctrines are carefully considered and 
 supported by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. Bj 
 Rev. A. A. JiMEsoN, M. D. 12mo, embossed cloth. 
 
 This book contains a clear exposition of the doctrines of 
 the Articles, and of the errors against which the Articles 
 were directed, written in a popular style, and divided into 
 sections, for the purpose of presenting each doctrine and 
 its opposite error in the most prominent manner. 
 
 From Rev. John Millar. 
 *' It is a book for the Methodist and for the age — a re- 
 ligious multum in parvo — combining sound theology with 
 practical religion. It should be found in every Methodist 
 family.'' 
 
 From Rev. "W. R. Babcock, Pastor of the Methodist Church in Si 
 Louis, Missouri. 
 
 **From our intimate acquaintance wifh the gifted and 
 pious Author of these * Notes,' we anticipate a rich intel- 
 lectual feast, and an able defense of the Biblical origin of 
 the doctrines of the Articles of Religion, as contained in 
 the Discipline of the Methodist Church." 
 
 The laymen of the Methodist Church have long need- 
 ed this work. Although we regard the Twenty-Five Ar- 
 ticles as self-evident truths — the concentrated teachings of 
 the Holy Bible, and the bulwark of the Protestant Faith 
 — they are not sufficiently understood and comprehended 
 by those professing to believe them. Dr. Jimeson has 
 furnished us, in a condensed form and popular style, with 
 a lucid exposition and triumphant defense of our faith, 
 sustained and supported by history and the opinions of 
 the Fathers, and adapted to the present wants of tha 
 Church." 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 M£THaDlSM EXPL.VINED AND DEFENDED. 
 
 By Rev. John S. Inskip. 12mo, embossed cloth. 
 
 Fran the Herald and Jimmal. 
 "We have read this book with no ordinary interest, 
 and on llie whole, rejoice in its appearance for several 
 reasons — Fird, It is a concise anil poweiful defense of 
 every esseniial feature of Melhoclisni, now-a-days so much 
 assailed by press and pulpit. Se ond. The general plan 
 and charac er of the work are such, that it will be read 
 and appreciated by the great masses of our people who 
 are not familiar wiih more extended and elaborate woiks. 
 Third, It is highly con.seivalive and practical in its ten- 
 dencies, and will eminently tend to create liberal views 
 and mutual confession between the ministry and laiiy for 
 the go >d of the whole — a feaiure in our eronomy never to 
 be overlooked. Fourth, This work is not written to ad- 
 Yocate some local or neighborhood prejudice; neither to 
 confute some particular heresy or assault; but its \iews 
 are peculiarly denominational ami comprehensive, indicat- 
 ing the careful and v\ide observation of the author — fre# 
 from bigoLry and narrow piejudice." 
 
 From the Spr.ngfichl Repuhlic. 
 " We have read this new w^rk of Rev. J. S. Inskip with 
 great pleasure and protit. It in very truth explains and 
 def<'ncis Methodism, and, as tlu? introduc ion (vvritien bj 
 another) says, 'its pages cover nearly the whole held of 
 controversy in regaid to the polity of tlie Methodist 
 Cliurch, and [.resent a clear r.nd candid exposition of Me- 
 thodism in a clear and systematic form, and highly argu- 
 mentative style. It is a book for the times, and should be 
 read by all who desire to become more intimately ac- 
 quainied with the Meth;)dist economy. It excels all other 
 works oi its c'ass in the arrangement and judicious treat- 
 ment of its subject.' It has evidently been written wi;h 
 great prudence and care in reference to the facts and evi- 
 dences on which the arguments are piedicated. This 
 book will doub:less be of general service to the Chuich, 
 and an instrument of great good." 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 PETERSON'S FAMILIAR SCIENCE; 
 
 Or, the Scit'Diific ExplanaiitD of Ciiriinon Things. 
 
 Edited by R. E. Peterson, Member of the Academy oi 
 Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
 
 From T. S. Abthuk, EJilor of the Home Gazette. 
 
 *'* Familiar Science, or the Scitntific Explanation of 
 Common Tilings,' is one v>f the most generally useful 
 bonks that has Iat<'ly been printed. Tuis work, or h por- 
 i'u'.n of It, came liist from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Jirewer, 
 of Trinity Hall, C'-.ubjidge ; but, in the foini it tirst ap- 
 peared from tlie £]nglish pre.-s, it was not nnly unsui'cd to 
 the American pu] il, but very deficient in arrangement. 
 These defects, the editor Isas sought to ren-edy. To give 
 not only to the parent a ready means cf answering inqui- 
 ries, hut to provide a i^ood book for schools, is the object 
 of this volume. About two thousand fjuestions, on all 
 subjects of general information, are answered iu language 
 so plain that all may understand it." 
 
 Fiwn Wm. S. CLATtNGhR, Pi'incpil of Grammar School, Pfdla, 
 
 "The pages of 'Familiar Science' are its best recom- 
 mendation. Tlie common plunomena of life are treated 
 of in a simple and intelligible manner, which renders it 
 both pleasing ard instruc ive. In the family circle, as a 
 text book, it will form the basis of an hour's interesting 
 wuiversaiion, and in the hands of tire pupil, it will be a 
 valuable aid in the acquisition of useful knowledge." 
 
 Frm Wm. IIoberts. Princ'pal of Rlngwoll School, Phtladelphia. 
 
 "Robert ^. Petkrson, Esq — Dear Sir — I have been 
 much graiitied by an examination of your book, entitled 
 'Familiar Science.' 'J'lie cause of every day phenomena, 
 such as evaporation, condensation, the formation of clouds, 
 rain, dew, etc., are so familiarly explained, that all classes 
 of persons may readily compn hend them, and ] believe 
 the book has only to be known to be appreciated by 
 teachers." 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 SACRED LITERATTOE OF THE LORD'S PRAYER. 
 
 In vbich terms are defined, and the text carefullj considered. 
 12mo., clorh. 
 
 This is a volume of rare excellence, vritten in the author'* 
 usual style of great beautv arid elegance. It sparkles with gems 
 of elevated thought, and abounds in the most happy illustrations 
 of the great phil isophical bearings of the several petitions of the 
 LoT-d"s Prayer, on the general >;ystem of Revealed Religion, -while 
 their philo-ophy is very forcibly applied to the various duties of 
 practical Christianity. 
 
 "The introductory chapter is a learned and patient research 
 into the real origin and history of the use of this prayer, while 
 the succeeding chapters can not fail both to instruct" the head 
 and improve the heart. We have not read a more interesting 
 book for many years, and can most cordially recommend it to 
 every lover of chaste theological literature." 
 
 FARMER'S AND EMIGRANT'S BOOK. 
 
 By JosiAH T. Marshall, Author of " Emigrant's True Guide." 
 12rao., cloth, 500 pages. 
 
 The publishers are gratified that they are enabled to satisfy the 
 universal demand for a volume which comprises a mass of su- 
 perior material, derived from the most authentic sources and 
 protracted research. 
 
 The contents of the " Farmer's and Emigrant's Hand-Book " can 
 be accurately known and duly estimated only by a recurrence to 
 the Index of Subjects, which occupies ticeniy-four columns, com- 
 prising about ^fifteen hundred ditferent points of information 
 respecting the management of a Farm, from the first piirchase and 
 clearing of the land to all its extensive details and departments. 
 The necessary conveniences, the household economy, the care of 
 the animals, the preservation of domestic health, the cultivation of 
 fruits with the science and taste of the arborist, and the produc- 
 tion of the most advantageous articles for sale, are all displayed 
 in a plain, instructive, and most satisfactory manner; adapted 
 peculiarly to the classes of citizens for whose use and benefit the 
 work is 'specially designed. Besides a general outline of the 
 Constitution, with the Naturalization and Pre-emption Laws of 
 the United States, there is appended a Miscellany of 120 pages, 
 including a rich variety of advice, hints, and rales, the study and 
 knowlerlge of which will unspeakably promote both the comfort 
 and welfare of all who adopt and practice them. 
 
 The publishers are assured that the commendations which the 
 "Farmer's and Emigrant's Hand-Book" has received, are fully 
 merited ; and they respectfully submit the work to Agriculturists, 
 in the full conviction that the Farmer or the Emigrant, in any 
 part of the country, will derive numberless blessings and im- 
 provements from his acquaintance with Mr. Marshall's manual. 
 
APPLEGATE & CO/S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Ellen, or the Chained Mother, and Pictures of Kentucky 
 Slavery. 
 
 Drawn from Real Life. By Mary B. Harlan. 
 
 "This little volume is full of sympathetic scenes and 
 touching narratives of -wrongs peculiar to American Sla- 
 very. It is written in a happy style and chaste language ; 
 is free from abusive epithets or unkind words, and will 
 facinate the reader." 
 
 Review of Uncle Tom's Cabin ; or, An Essay on Slavery. 
 
 By A. Woodward, M. D. 
 
 The Evils of Slavery and the Remedy ; The Social, 
 Civil, and Religious Condition of the slaves, their Treat- 
 ment, etc. ; African and Anglo-Saxon characters con- 
 trasted ; Emancipation, results and consequences ; Relative 
 duties of Masters and Servants. 
 
 " This work, although a book for the South, is devoid 
 of'Southern ultraism, and will be read with profit by many 
 intelligent Northern readers." 
 
 Religious Courtship; or, Marriage on Christian 
 Principles. 
 
 By Daniel Defoe, Author of Robinson Crusoe." 
 
 ** Who has not read Robinson Crusoe ? It has facinated 
 every boy, and stimulated his first taste for reading. 
 Defoe has been equally happy in this present work, in 
 interesting those of riper years, at an age (Shakspeare*s 
 age of the lover) when the mind is peculiarly susceptible 
 of impressions. Although but few copies of this work 
 have ever been circulated in America, yet it has a 
 popularity in England coextensive with his unparalleled 
 ' Crusoe.' " 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 METHODIST FAMILY MANUAL. 
 
 By Rev. C. S. Lovell. 12mo., embossed cloth. Containing the 
 Doctrines and Moral Goveriinient of the Methodist Church, with 
 Scripture proofs; accompanied with appropriate questions, to 
 "Wliich is added a systematic plan for studying the Bible, rules 
 for the government of a Christian family, and a brief catechism 
 upon experimental religion. 
 
 This work supplies a want which has long been felt among 
 the members of the Methodist Church. Asa family manual, and 
 aid to the means of grace and practiced duties of Christianity, it 
 is certainly a valuable work. It also contains the Discipline of 
 the Churcli, with Scriptural proofs, and appropriate que.^tions to 
 each chapter. It is certainly an excellent book for religious in- 
 struction and edification. We most henrtily commend it to the 
 Methodist public, and hope it may have a wide circulatiou and 
 be made a blessing to all. 
 
 REMARKABLE ADVENTURES OF CELEBRATED 
 PERSONS. 
 
 Large l2mo., gilt sides and back. Beautifully illustrated. 
 Embracing the romantic incidents and adventures in the lives 
 of Sovereigns, Queens, Generals, Princes, Travelers, Warriors, 
 Voyagers, <fec., <fcc., eminent in the history of Europe and America. 
 
 FAMILY TREASURY, 
 
 Of "Western Literature, Science, and Art. Illustrated with 
 Steel Plates. Pvo., cloth, gilt sides and back. 
 This work most happily blends valuable information and 
 sound moralitv, with the gratification of a literary and imagina- 
 tive taste. Its pages abound in sketches of history, illustrations 
 of local interest, vivid portraitures of virtuous life, and occa- 
 sional disquisitions and reviews. 
 
 Christianity, as Exemplified in the Conduct of its 
 Sincere Professors. By Rev. W. Secker. 
 
 This is a book of rare merit, full of thought-exciting topics, 
 and is particularly valuable as an aid to Christian devotion. 
 12mo, embossed cloth. 
 
APPLEGATE & GO 'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 TEMPERANCE MUSICIAN. 
 
 A choice selection of original and selected Tfrnperance Muaie, 
 arranged for one. two. three, or four voice-i, with an extensive 
 variety of Popular Temperance Songs. 32ino. 
 
 Tliis is a neat volume, well printed, and well bound, c->ntainin» 2-56 pa^es, 
 II the best collectioo of lemwranoe song^ and music we have 5een. Were a 
 few cnpie* gecureJ in every town in Ohio, in the hands of the warm-hearted 
 friends of the Mnine Law, an element of p<iwer und interest would be adde«l to 
 temperance meeting*, an I a stron :er i npuUe given to the onward march of tbo 
 Mid water army. — Summit, {O.,) Beacon. 
 
 This will certainly b«!Come one of the most popular temperance son^ book? 
 which has been publishe 1 in the coantrv. We thiak it i-;. so far as we have 
 examined, the b€«t collecii jn of sonz^ we have seen. Some of them are ex- 
 ceedingly beaatiful and affecting. — T. /np^r^nix Chart. 
 
 This is a popular Temperance Song: Book, designed for the people, and should 
 be In every family. We can recommen J it to the patronage of all our tem^^^e- 
 rau'-e friends, as the best temperance son:^ster, with music attached, we have 
 Been. The music in this work is set according to Harrison's Nume-al S. stem, 
 for t\vo reasons: FirsD. because it is so simple and scientific that all the peojl* 
 can ea-ily learn it. Second, it i< difficult to set music in a book of this slxfi 
 aad thape, except in numerals. — CUvdand Cjmmercial. 
 
 UNIVERSAL MUSICIAN. 
 
 By A. D. Fillmore. Author of Christian Psalmist, <tc., contain- 
 ing all Systems of Notation, New Edition, enlarged. 
 
 The title, "Univ.-r.sal Musician, ' is adopted because the work 
 is designed for everybody. The stvle of expression is iu coninion 
 plain English, so that it may be adapted to the capacities of all, 
 instead of simply pleasing the fancy of the few. 
 
 Most of the mu-ic written in Harrison's Numeral System of 
 Notation, because it is the most iutel igible of all the different 
 systems extant, and is therefore better adapt.-d to the wants of 
 community. Music would be far better understood and appre- 
 ciated by the people generally, if it were all written iu this way. 
 For it is more easily written, occupies less space, is more quickly 
 learned, more clearly understood is less liable to be forgotten, 
 and will auswer all common purposes better than any other. 
 But the world is fuil of music, written in various systems, and 
 the learner should acquire a knowledge of all the principal varie- 
 ties of notation, so as to be able to re td all music. Toafford this 
 knowledge to all, is the object of the present effort. 
 
 Poetry, which is calculated to please as well as instruct, has 
 been carefully selected from many volumes already published, 
 and from original compositions furnished expressly for this work. 
 Much of the music is original, which is willingly submitted to 
 the ordeal of public opinion. Some of it certainly posse>ses some 
 meri', if we may judge from the avidity with which it is pil 
 fered and offered to tlie public by some, would-be, authors 
 
APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 CTniFersalliad ; Or Confessions of UniTcrsalism. A Poem in twelve Can- 
 to«. to which are added Lectures on Univer?alism. wherein the system is ex- 
 plained, and its chief arguments considered and refuted. 
 
 Salvation by Christ. By Rev. Wm. Sherlock. 
 
 iEolian JLyrist. By Kev. Wm. B. GnxaAM, Pastor of the First Cumberland 
 Presbyterian Church. Columbia, Tenn, Figured Notes, 250 pages. 
 
 Amerirau Church Harp. A Choice Collection of Hymns and Tunes 
 adapted to all Clu-isiian Churches. Sinrring Schools, and Private Families. 
 By Kev. W. FanNEHART. 12mo., half morocco. 
 
 The Camp ITIeeting and Sabbath School Chorister. Bj 
 
 Aarov Cos. 
 
 Sacred ITIcloaeon, A Collection of Pvevival ITjTnns. By Rev. R. M. Dalbt. 
 
 A Biographical Sketch of Colonel Daniel Boone, the Fir.st 
 Settler in Kentucky, interspersed with incidents in the early annals of the 
 country. By Tuiothy Flint. 12mo. Emba.ssed cloth. 
 
 liifeof Tecnmseh, and ofhU Brother the Prophet, with a nistorical Sketch 
 of the Shawnee Indians. By B. Drake. 12mo., embossed cloth. 
 
 liife and Adrentnres of Black Ilawk, with Sketches of Keokuk, 
 the Sac and Fox Indians, and the Black Uawk War. By B. Drake. 12mo., 
 embossed cloth. 
 
 Western A dTcntnrc. By M'CLtJjf^. Illustrated. 
 
 liC^isi & Clarke's Jojirnai to the Kocky ITIonntains. Illod- 
 trated. 12mo.. sheep. 
 
 liife and Essays of Ben. Franklin. ISmo., cloth. 
 
 Ifledical Student in Europe, Or Notes on France, England, Italy, 
 &c. Illustrated with steel plates. 
 
 The Poor ITIan's Home, Or Rich Man's Palace; Or Gravel Wall Build- 
 ings. This is one of the most desirable book? published, f 'r all who contem- 
 plate erecting dwellings or out hou>:e3, as the cost is not over one third that 
 of brick or frame, and quite as durable. Illustrated with numerous plans 
 and a cut of the author's residence, with full directions, that every man may 
 be his own builder. 
 
 Kjectnres and Sermons. By Rev. F. G. Black, of the Cumberland 
 
 Presbyterian Church. 12mo., embossed cloth. 
 A New History of Texas, from the first European Settlements, in 
 
 16S2, down to the' present time — including an account of the Mexican War, 
 
 together with the Treaty. Paper. 
 ITIap of the Western RiTcrs. By S. B. Munson. Being a map of the 
 
 navigaWe parts of the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, Cvunberland, and 
 
 Wabash Rivers, w ith a Table of Distances. 
 A New History of Oregon and California. By Laxspord W. 
 
 Hastings. Paper. 
 
 Parley's America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Islands, Tales of the Sea, Greece, 
 Rome, Winter Evening Tales, Juvenile Tales, Bible Stories, Anecdotes, Sun, 
 Moon, and Stars : new and revised editions. 
 
 Parley's Right is Mizht. Dick Boldhero. The Truth Finder, Philip Brusque, 
 Tales of Sea and Land,' Tales of the Kevoluaon: 
 
 Bradley's Housekeeper's Ouide and Cook Book; Or a plain 
 and economical Cook Book, containing a great variety of new, valuable, and 
 approved receipts; 12mo:, cloth; 
 
 Ijyons' English Grammar. A new Grammar of the English Lan- 
 guage, familiarl- explained, and adapte^l to the use of Schools and Private 
 Students. The work is so arranged as to infallibly secure the attention, to 
 awpken inquiry, and to leave the most lasting impressions upon the mind 
 of the learner." 12mo.. cloth. 
 
 C«mmon School Primer. 
 
; 
 
i