'^^^^^^' 1 Tlie i rroperty i ; iiBT CBiffllTira ^ ■n UTai&T7. BARTON SQUARE, SALEM. DEPOSITED — IN THR- LIBRARY -<=-<>F THK — ESSEX INSTITUTE. '^0 4 "i A NEW CHAIN OF PLAIN ARGUMENT, CONCLUSIVE AGAINST TRINITARIANISM. APDUESSED TO A Trinitarian Writer for the Panoplist^ IN A SERIES OF CantsiD Setter^. BY THOMAS WORCESTER, A, M. I'ASTOR OF A CHT-ncH IN saxisbvut, :;. ii. To us there is but one God the Father. God is one. Paul. And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord. And the scribe said unto iiim, Well, Master, thou hast said tlie truth '; for there is one God, and there is none other but he. Jesus said that he answered discreetly. Mark. BOSTON : PRINTED BY JOHN ELIOJ. 1817. A WORD TO THE PUBLIC. If a new chain of sound conclusive argument, stated in a candid, interesting manner, be in fact contained in the follow- ing pages, then they are not vmworthy of an attentive perusal, and of the most serious consideration. And who, without a patient, fair examination of the whole, can safely form an opin- ion of the work, contrary to the import of the title page ? It is not meant that every article in the following series of argu- ment is perfectly new ; but, so far as the author has knowledgCj there is no other publication, which bears any near resemblance to what is now before the reader. CONTENTS. Page Introductory Letter . . . . . 5 Letter U. On the want of explicit divine testimony in support of the triune doctrine . . , .7 Letter IIL On the want of any tradition among the Jews in favour of the doctrine . . . .9 Letter IV. Containing an argument, arising from the history of the fourth century . . . .11 Letier V. Containing an argument, grounded on the fact, that many have not been able to find the doctrine in the bible . . . . . .15 Letter VI. Containing an argument, grounded on the fact, that many, who had been educated Trinitarians, have changed sides . . . . ^ . 18 Letter VII. Containing arguments resulting from the various explanations given by Trinitarians, and from their manner of treating their opponents . . 20 Letter VIII. Containing an argument drawn from the recorded worship of the ancient people of God . 24 Letter IX. On the explicit and abundant testimony, that God is one person . . . . . 26 Letter X. On the want of any good reason, why three divine persons should speak, and be addressed in the singular number . . . . .27 Letter XI. On the insuperable difficulties respecting the supposed complex character of Christ . . 30 Letter XII. An attempt to shew, that nothing is gained by ascribing supreme divinity to our Lord . . 34 Letter XIII. On the harmony of divine testimony with- out involving the supreme divinity of Christ. And the conclusion . • . • . . 38 A New Chain of Plain Argument. INTRODUCTORY LETTER. Sir, AS the folldwing letters will first meet your eye from the press, you will be apprized of the subject of them as soon as you shall have read the title page. May it not then be well for you to call to mind one of the resolutions of the celebrated President Edwards, before you come to any thing of the nature of argument in what I shall offer for your consideration ? " I observe," says Mr. Edwards, " that old men seldom have any advantage of new discoveries, because they are fixed in a way of thinking to t?hich they have long been accustomed. I re- solved, if ever I come to years, that I will be impartial to hear the reasons of all pretended discoveries, and receive them, if rational, how long so ever I have been used w a different way of thinking." Happy it would be for individuals, happy it would be for the church of God and for society at large, if men in every station of influence would ever act in strict conformity to the foregoing resolution. But Sir, how rarely do men act as Mr. Edwards saw that propriety and his own advantage re- quired of him ? Do you not at once perceive, that it is not a very easy thing for one in your situation to lay aside all self- interest, prejudice, and prepossessions, so as to consider duly, and weigh impartially, any arguments, which may be offered against the doctrine of the Trinity ? After having taken, so deep an interest m the support of such doctrine, representing any departure from it as of the most fatal tendency, must you not have a Tcry uncommon share of self-command to " be im* partial" in respect to any reasons, which can be assigned, for not believing that there are three persons in Deity I Ought you not then to take the more pains to prepare yourself to read and consider as your own " advantage," even in this case, ma^ require? For after all the assurance you have felt to the con- trary, is it not, at least, possible that a form of words, not found in the bible, and which first came into use in a time when the minds of men were greatly heated by controversy, may at last be found without any solid foundation ? And if it be fiossi- ble that youj with great numbers ef worthy men, ip,ay have raitf-' % }udged in lliis case, then is it not of very considerable impor- tance tliat you should put yourself fairly in the way to discover whether it be not so in fact ? You Will, I think, allow, that for 41 writer on religion, like yourself, to be in material error in respect to a point so often brought to view, and so strongly urged, must be of very evil tendency. As the work, to which you contribute, has an extensive circulation, if it be only fiossi- ble that you have not truth on your side, in the case to which I refer, then it may be that the minds of many, through your in- strumentality, are filled with prejudice and bitterness against many pious and able men, who are in the way to find accep- tance with God in that day when " the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened." It 7nay be, that your present read- ers will communicate like error, like prejudice, and like bitter- ness to vast numbers of others, and they in their turn may do the same, and so on through successive generations. It may be also that through your inQucnce, many, who shall become public teachers, will be prevented from becoming in the best manner qualitied to carry the gospel in its purity to Pagan na- tions, and especially to such Mahometans and Jews, as have insuperable objections against Christianity, because its teachers have inculcated the very doctrine in question. Therefore it may be, that thousands and millions of lost men will, through what you have already done, be prevented from coming into the fold of Chiist. If such things are merely possible should you not be excited to the most serious and prayerful endea- vours to read with candor, and vvith due consideration what is now before you ? It is more than seven years since the course of providence led me to such inquiry on the subject in view, as issued in a decided conviction, that I had been educated in great error re- specting the unity of God and the character of our Lord. And while it has been my perpetual aim ever since, to keep my mind open to the light, and although I have constantly endea- voured to pay due attention to every appearance of argument, which has been cast in my way, yet I am more and more con- firmed in the opinion, that Trinitarianism is an error, exceed- ingly detrimental to Christianity. Much as 1 venerate the memory of many, who lived and died Trinitarians, and while I have no doubt concerning the godly sincerity of great numbers now living in the same profession, it is nevertheless evident to my mind, that it would be of un- speakable advantage to have all such triune words and forms, as are not found in the bible, entirely given up. This appears of the more importance at this time because such great and very commendable efforts are making to diffuse the precious light and the unspeakable blessings of Christianity through the -world. While my heart rejoices in the animating prospects of the present day, it seems to me of inexpressible consequence-^ that the many, who shall go abroad in various directions to publish salvaiion, should be prepared to preach the cverlastinj*- i;^ospel in its firimithfe purity, without carrying with them any such words of " man's wisdom" as lamentable contioversy has long continued in common use. And can you. Sir, deny that this is very desirable ? Yet have you not done much of a very contrary tendency ? Is not the manner, in which this subject, particularly, has been treated in the Panoplist, highly calculated to make its readers think, that every gospel minister must boldly declare, that there are three coequal persons in one God, instead of teaching in the language of the first ministers of Christ that " there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" — ."the only begotten Son of God" " unto whom is given the Spirit without measure" and through whom " our Father, who is in Heaven, will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him V Suppose, Sir, that after all you have said and done, you should, before you leave this world, see cause to give up the doctrine of the Trinity, as the excellent Dr. Watts did, in his last duyti, how must you then feel in respect to the influence such things as you have pub- lished have had ? What, in that case, must be your sensation in respect to the feelings, language, and conduct you have ex- cited against men, who will then be found to have suffered, not a little, for the truth's sake ? And should such a time ever come, can it come too soon ? For must you not then very ear- nestly wish to have an opportunity to do something towards correcting, and counteracting what will appear to have been so much amiss ? Can it then be too soon for you to pay the most serious and unbiassed attention to some of the many things, which have to others appeared as weighty reasons why they should expose themselves to whatever might be the con- sequences in this misjudging world, rather than to appear any longer on the side of Trinitarians ? Sensible that it is no less required of me to write, than of you to read, in the constant exercise of christian meekness and humility, it is my earnest desire, and prayer to God, that, whatever deficiency shall bo found in any other respect, there may be no appearance in all I have to say, of any such spirit, as the most humble disciple- at the feet of Jesus would deem contrary to the nature of " that wisdom) which is from above." LETTER II. On the want of explicit divine testimony in support of the docU'in«. Sir, The first thing, which I shall bring to view as a weigh- ty consideration against the Trinitariaji theory, is the want of. 8 explicit and abundant testimony in favour of it in the sacred ■writings. WJicn controversy is out of mind, is it not readily and universally admitted, that the most important articles in the system of eternal truth arc most clearly and indisputably stated in the Bible ? Hut Sir, while you evidently consider tbc doc- trine of three coequal persons in one God as a fundamcnial ar- ticle of revealed religion, you have never been able to ])oint to a single sacred text of any such ex/iUcit mcanir.g. Nor can this be done by any other man living ; for it is undeniable that if the doctrine be found in the Bible at all, it is found only by Way of inference, from here and there a word or sentence, or part of a sentence of ambiguous or doubtful signification. While this must be admitted as a serious fact, ho.v is it to bo accounted for, on your ground, in a satisfactory manner ? You •will not say that the doctrine you contend for was not as true and as important from the beginning as it is now. Why then is it not clearly found in every part of the Bible ? Why is it not, by di- vine testimony, made as clearly and abundantly X tlie 'iOtli I'age, is verbaliin. " AtliH'iasius now firidiiig his casu liopetess, (leprived of his bishoiiric, and anoth- er in possession of it, formed a most dcsjierale resolution, uinvoriny of a chrisiiuii bissliop, and uhich hath had the most fatal cnusefjueiices. lie appealed from tho coiinei! of Anlioih and the emperor to Julius, ijishup of iJomc — fled to that city and put himself under the protection of that prelate. Julius himself, delighted ■with this event, as it was an acknowledgement that his jurisdieiion is above all orliers, most gladly received him anrl his api)eal. Atid lliis laid the foundation of tlie papal supremacy, ui)on whicli hath been built such a superstructure of do- minion, of doctrine and worship, as halli astonished the world ever since. Now Athanasius was highly caressed and dignified with the title of saint. His opinions must be defended to give the better prete.\,t for defending his person." The fol- lowing gloomy account is extracted from the same author, beginning at the 84th page. "In the year .SOT Liberitis, bishop of Home, died. He had in the former part of his time, imitated his predeceasoi- Jidius in su],>port>ng Athanasius and liia tenets : but at last he became one of those who subscribed his coiidemtialion. There was one Damasas, a clergyman of Rome, whom Liberius i;ad fnade his vicar, and given him several preferments. Upon the flealh of Liberius, Damasus and Ursicinus, another of the Roiuan presbyteis, were competitors for the suc- cession ; and they were both chosen bishop of liome by their diflerent pai-ties. This occasioned dreadful tumults. (Damasus in one of these, at the head of his partizans, beset the church of Liberius, where were many of Ursicinus' party as- sembled ; set fire to it and burned anil killed an hundred and sixty i)ersoiis ) Each supported his claim by violence and force. But Dainasus vas either the riKiSt jjowerful or the most cunning; for after much blood had been shed, Ursici- nus and his party were driven out of the city. When Uamasus was ilius left in possession of his dignity, he called a council at Home, and the fu'st thing he did in it, vas to have Iiis predecessor and benefactcr, in all probability then in heaven. Censured and coiidei..ined as a heretic for acting against tiie saint Athanasius. Da- masus was too sagacious not to perceive, tlial the grandeur of himself and his sec depeiuled upon his supporting the man, who had done more to aggrandize the bishopric of Home than any person before liad attempted ; and therefore he strictly united himiclf to Atiianasius. And no two were ever more like one another. Both were guilty of the most turbident and violent actions ; both were pu!)licly accused of the grossest crimes. Both supported their titles to their bishoprics, against Uicir competitors, by the most outrageous tumults, massacres,, and murders. Both of theoi were unnoticed tVir any good actions in their lives. Unless their furious zeal against their t'elloiv christians whom they called heretics may be so called. Both of them were dignified with the title of SAINT — for doing the greatest prejudice to Christianity. And both of lliem now united in the support of Homoousi.in doctrine, and all the conseiiueiices which Athanasius and l)is adherents had diawn from it. Now the grand struggle was between the Athaivasians and Arii.ns known uiuler various names. — After the Nicene council, when the contending parties had worn themselves out in the most refined disputes concerning tlie divinity of ikc Sou of God, they tlieu began to argue concerning that of the Holy Ghost." foundation ? But you will suy, a very great council at Constan- tinople, which continued three years, beginning A. D. 381, ap- proved and established the doctrine of Athanasius as orthodox. Yes, Sir, as Di\ Moshiem says, "An hundred and fifty bishops, who were present at this council, 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,"* Mr. Milner also says "This council very accurately defined the doctrine of the Trinity." Yet with all his Trinita- rian zeal, Mr. Milner is constrained to say of the same council, " It was very confused and disorderly, greatly inferior in piety and wisdom to that of Nice. — Faction was high and charity was low at this time."t Thus does the most zealous Trinitarian liistorian speak of that council, which, as he thinks, " very ac- curately defined the doctrine of the Trinity." But, Sir, if this council had been equal "in piety and wisdom to the council of Nice," is it certain that " the doctrine of three persons in one God" would have been " fixed in a full and determinate man- ner," as it was at that time ? It was now more than fifty years since the commencement of the deplorable controversy respect- ing the churacier of Christ, In all this time there was, as you will not deny, a rapid decline of pure and undefiled religion ; and a very great increase of such error, pride and arrogance, as brought on the loiig and dreadful night of popish darkness ] And no man, well acquainted with the history of the church during that period, can deny, that the progress of Athanasian Trinitarianism was, in a great degree, proportionate to the de- cline of godiincss, and to the rise of " the man of sin.'' As the • Ecc. Hist. Vol. I. p. 14G. -j- Cli. Hist. Vol. n. p. 184. The same author, from whose voik the foregoing; long note was taken, speaking of the council of Constantinople, says," Tlieodo- sius co:ilinued the council three years. Nectarius presided the second year in the synod, to which they invited Naziauzen, whom they had deposed the year before. But he refused to go to this or any other syn jclica! assembly, and told tliem in his letter, tliat ' experience had taiu';hi him how little good was to be expected from synodi, which usually more widen than heal up differences; where generally they clash and quarrel, wraii;;le and make a noise, more like a flock of geese and cranes, than an assembly of grave and wise prelates. At such meetings, he says, strife and contention, pride atid ambition, commonly bear the greatest sway ; and the man who goes there as judge, should sooner corrupt himself than correct and re- form others — that for these reasons he had retired within himself, and thought the only means of security was to live in ]>rivacy and solitude.* The next year, 3S,3, Theedosius resolving to have a creed 7nacle that all should comply with, did what he could to mollify and sweeten the several parties. He received them all with, the fondest caresses, conniving at the exercise of their several worships. But the Athanasian bishops were greatly oftended at this toleration, and insisted that the Arians might be suppressed and banished the city. This the emperor found himself obliged to comply with. — Now it was that the Athanasians, finding them- selves more numerous than their opposers, set themselves to form a new creed : And out of the old forms of Jerusalem and Nice, they made another at Constan* tinople, which is the very creed we have in our liturgy, one article only excepted, ooncerning th? procession of the Holy Spirit." p. 9^. 14 minds of the clergy and others became more and more "cor- rupted from the simplicity that is in Christ," they became more and more ready to sanction, or at least to tolerate the tri- une "words of man's wisdom," used iu articles of faith and in forms of worship. It should however be noted, that even in the council of Con- stantinople, there was a large minority of dissenters, and that great numbers, about that time and afterwaros, exposed tliem- selves to the most violent persecutions, by refusing to sub- scribe the triune article of fnith, and by bearing testimony a- gainst such doctrine and worship. Now Sir, in view of these things, is it possible for you to think that the doctrine, about which there was so much conten- tion, was no innovation ? At a time so near the apostolic age, was it possible, that there could be among christians very vio- lent contention of long continuance, in respect to any material point, which the first christians at large had received from the apostles of our Lord ? Can you believe, that all, wJio attended on the ministry of the apostles, heard them teach as Trinita- rians now tcaclr, and heard them worship as Trinitarians now worship, and yet believe that the self same doctrine and man- ner of woi ship, excited very general alarm, and occasioned very warm contention throughout the christian world, within less than thi'ce hundred years after the ministry of the apostles was ended ? Or, in other words, is it not made clearly evident to your own mind, that, as to the great point in question, the inspired apostles and primitive christians did not teach and worship as Trinitarians do at this day ? In short, as to this serious fact, we have the explicit testimony both of Mr. Miiner and Dr. Mo- shiem against you. The former says expressly, that " Flavian" of the fourth century " was the first who hivented the doxology, " Glory be to the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost." And the other liistorian says, " In earlier periods of the church the wor- ship of Christians was confined to the one supreme God and his Son Jesus Chriot."* P. S. In connexion with the argument contained in the fore- going letter, it ought to be considered that the doctrine in ques- tion cannot, with any propriety, be viewed as a doctrine of the reformation. Often and confidently as it has been thus called, who can assign any good reason for it ? For who does not know that the triune article of faith as " fixed " by the " confused and ^itjrdcrly" council of Constantinople, has ever since been deemed a cardinal point in the creed of the church of Rome I What then Avas done by Luther and his coadjutors in regard to this matter I Certainly they did not originate an article of faith which had existed nearly a thousand years before their time ; ' Ch. Hist. Vol. II. p. 9J. Ecc. Hist. Vol. H. p. 179. 15 nor did they revive the use of that article, for the use of it nev- er had been discontinued. Therefore it is only true, that the reformers had no contention with the church of Rome on this particular point. As they had been Trinitarians while of that church, so they continued to be when Protestants. Nor is it at all strange that they did not perceive at once, and in every par- ticular, how far the papal church had wandered from the way o( truth. It is rather wonderful tliat they, in so short a time, ef- fected so much as they did by way of rcformalion. But if I do not mistake, it is somewhere said of ths mild Mckincthon, that he perceived in the triune article of faith so mvich departure from the simplicity of divine testimony, that he wept in view of the controversy it must at some time occasion among the Pro- testants. LETTER V. Containing an argument, grounded on (lie f:;(i, l!iat many have not been able to find tlie doctrine ia tiic bibie. Sir, I WOULD now lead you to consider, that although for many centuries all have been under strong inducements to re- ceive the doctrine in question, yet there ever have been many, who have not been able to find it in the bible. You, Sir, have too much information to deny, that very powerful secular induce- ments have long been on the side of Tiinitarians, nearly all over the christian world. Even since the days of more violent per- secution were ended, men of any distinction have had much to forego, and not a little to suffer, if they could not be, or at least profess to be^ Tiinitarians. Without such profession, in what christian kingdom have men stood fair for any considerable promotion, either in church or state ? Besides, who would not wish to avoid stich censures, privations, reproaches, abuses and anathemas, as have constantly fallen on men of any note, who could not do otherwise than dissent from the triune faith ? Tru- ly, Sir, in view of these things, and considering what human nature is, and how much there is of imperfection even in good men, it is easy to see why Trinitarianism is so generally pro- fessed, whether there be in fact much, or little, or nothing in the bible to support it or not. You know Sir, how natural it is for men, who are educated Mahometans to continue in that faith ; and how natural it is for those, who are educated in the church of Rome, to continue in the errors of that church. You likewise know, how natural it is for those, who were educated in the church of England faith, to adhere to the articles and forms of episcopacy. Besides, you are not ignorant of the fact, that the more any sect of christians become interested in the support of any particular sentiment, the more easy it is for them to construe much of divine testimony in favour of that senti- 16 ment, even when in fcicl tlicrc is not in the whole bible an ioU of solid foundation, on which they can rest. And can you do otherwise than admit that there is no one sentiment, in the sup- port of which any sect of christians are more interested than Trinitarians are in the support of the doctrine now in view ? Is it not then very possible, that after all they have said and done, it may be found that there is not a sinj^le text in the bible real- ly on their side ? But while it is so easy to account for the long and general prevalence of Trinitarianism, whether it has really any scripture foundation or not, how are we to account for the dissent of not a very few in every age ? When it has been, in every considerable part, and in almoK^ every corner of Christen- dom, so much for the interest of all men to subscribe to the triune article of faith, why have considerable numbers chosen rather to expose themselves to censure, reproach, and no in- considerable privations, I)y a difiTerent profession ? Would they have done this if they could have found satisfactory evidence of the truth of such doctrine ? And when there was so much to induce them to it, why could they not find such evidence in the bible, if it can be truly found there? I am aware that you have an answer ready, but I can hardly think it is such as can well satisfy your own mind. In such things as you publish, and in other publications on your side, it is often insinuated very strongly, that those, who reject the doctrine of the Trir.ity. do this, not because they do not find biblo evidence in support of the doctrine, but -'because it transcends the limited faculties of the human mind." But, Sir, to say nothing of the uncharita- ble nature of this insinuation, is it in human nature to forego all the secular advantages on the side oi Trinitarianism merely to avoid a profession of faith in a mysterious proposition, when the same is well supported by divine testimony .' You cannot be insensible, that many rei)uted Trinitarians have found various ways of explaining the triune form of words in a manner, which involves no mystery. And is there not much reason to believe, that a great proportion of those, who have passed for Trinitarians, have used the common words and forms of the same denomination, without ain^ such meaning as " transcends the limited faculties of the human mind ?" Or, in other words, have not many, very many, avoided the charge of heresy by professing to believe, that there are three persons in one God, meaning only that one God acts in three offices, or hy explaining the Avords three persons in some other way no more mysteri- ous ? And if any class, or classes of men have scorned to avoid the charge of heresy Ijy any such device, are they not rather to be praised than condemned for so doing I And would it be any stretch of candour for you to allow, that men of integrity enough to resist all the temptations to follow a multitude in some such course, would acknowledge the fact, if they could find the doc- trine in question in the bible ^ 17 Kov,', Sir, let mc inlreat you to caii to mind that considera- ble numbers in every age have not been Trinitarians. Think of the great numbers, who steadily resisted all the efforts of Athanasius and his adherents to establish his doctrine. Think of the many, who manfully stood out, even after a great council, by a majority of votes, had decided in favour of the doctrine, and after it .vas sanctioned by the plenitude of popish authori- ty. Think of the numerous Waldcnses and Albigcnses, who, through the darkest ages, distinguished themselves by their pu- rity in doctrine and life ; and of whom Trinitarian writers al- low, that many of them, at least, were not Trinitarians. Think of the various classes among Protestants, who have, in many in- stances, to their great secular disadvantage, avowed antitrinita- rian sentiments. And think moreover of the great proportion r>{ reftuted Trinitarians, who have not been able to find any real Trinitarianism in the bible. Think, I entreat you, on these things, and inquire seriously, whether there be not at least some probability that the strong inducements, you have been under to keep on the popular side, may have caused you to mistake the true meaning of divine testimony ? An aged person of good understanding, of early undoubted piety, and of much acquaintance with the scriptures, once said, in my hearing, " Until I lately read such a book, I never had a thought that any person in the v/orld ever believed that Jesus Christ was the self-existent God, Certainly the hil)lc never conveyed any such idea to my mind." This is but one of ma- ny similar declarations, which have led me to think that the number of real Trinitarians among the cominon people is very small. Although they so generally consent to the use of triune words and forms of worship, yet, as I believe, they generally have no clear idea of what you and others mean by such words and forms ; but use them, supposing that learned and good men can see why they should be used, while at the same time they as much believe that the one supreme God is one being, and his son Jesus Christ another, as they believe the same in respect to any other father and son. That this is true of a considerable number of persons, brought up in several Trinitarian societies, I have the most positive evidence. And I can see no rea- son why it is not as likely to be so with people generally through the christian world, as with those Avith whom I have had con- versation. But whether I am correct in supposing the number of such people to be so very large or not, still in the known fact there seems to be much weight of argument against your theo- ry. If a person of good understanding, and of genuine piety, although educated as a Trinitarian, may carefully read the bi- ble from youth to old age, without having a thought, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, then must there not be, to say the ieast, a great deficiency of scripture evidence in support of the 18 doctrine, \vhich you hoiel ; And in view of ivuxny bucli facts as I have stated, does it not appear as hard for you and others to re- quire a belief in your doctrine as a term of christian fellowship, as it was for Phuroah to require of the Israelites brick without straw ? LETTER VI. Containing an argument groiiiHlcd on the fact that many, who Lad been educa- ted Trinitarians, have changed sides. Sib, Another thing I would lead you to consider is, that not a veiy few, who had been educated Trinitarians, have, after a thorough examination of the subject, taken other ground. Much as there ever has been to induce all of such education to con- tiriue on the popular side, yet, at different times, and in several parts of the christian world, no inconsiderable numbers, have had resolution to make such inquiry, as issued in a decided change of sentiment. Plow is this to be well accounted for, if your doc- trine is vvell founded ? That hundreds and thousands, and tens of thousands, even of able, learned, and good men, should keep along us they were taught from their youth, under such secular ad- vantages, as have perpetually remained on one side, is by no means unaccountable, however erroneous the theory in question may be. You will, I think, allow, that on supposition Trinita- rians are really in the wrong, it is as easy to see why so many continue in this error, ns it is to see why such numbers continue in other great errors of the church of Rome. But that one man after another, in so many instances as have occurred, should vol- untarily set himself up as a mark and a by-word, and subject himself to various privations and sufferings by declaring his conviction of past error, is, I think, not easily reconcil'cuble with the supposition, that the bible contains a solid foundation for your theory. Can you do otherwise than allow, that one such an instance furnishes more weight of argument against you, thari the continuance of thousands on tlie side where supposed truth and secular case and interest are all united ? But we have known more than one such instance. '' Yes, and we have knowledge of such a change in a considerable number, who had been men of reputation for piety, orthodoxy, discernment, and information ; and against whom nothing can be truly said now, except that they have had the resolution to inquire for themselves, and the hones- ty and independence to avow their change of opinion on the point in question, and to act accordingly. And permit me. Sir, to add, that, as I believe, all these men would affirm, as in the presence of Jehovah, that they did not give up the triune doctrine "be- cause it transcends the limited faculties of tlie human mind ;" but because on examination, they found not only a great want of pjain divine warrant in support of it, but also found such ex* 19 plicit, positive, and abundant divine testimony against it, tliat if they had not once been Trinitarians themselves, they could hard- ly believe that any man, with the bible in his hands, could l)e hon- est in a profession of such faith. Would you ask, why .they did not discover all this before ? My answer is, they went on in tlic common track, without any thorough examination in respect to the matter, until in some v/ay they were roused to more faith- ful inquiry. Would you ask whether I suppose, that thorough inquiry on this point has never been made by any, who have continued to be Trinitarians ? Although it may at first seem un- candid I must answer, yes : It is Sir, my decided opinion tiiat every man, who ever did make thorough inquiry, with his mind open to the light of truth, has been convinced that Trinitarian- ism is of human device. I have no doubt that you, and many others, have spent considerable time, endeavouring to find evi- dence in favour of what you and they believed, and wished still to believe. But I do not think that you, or any other man, who is now on your side, ever rose above all prepossession, preju- dice, and self-interest, feeling as willing to find truth on the un- popular side as on the other, and then weighed every argument, which could be found both for and against what you believe, b^ the most patient and fair comparison of scripture v.ith scripture, and making all divine testimony in most perfect agreement with itself, the test of truth. It is. Sir, my settled opinion, that a great mistake in respect to what you and others on your side. have done, by way of inquiry in this matter, goes far to support your doctrine in the minds of men. I have no doubt that many of your readers suppose, that you have paid much attention to the subject in a candid and impartial manner. But, Sir, permit me to ask, is it not a fact, that Avith all your ability and study, you have greater reliance on the examination, which you sup- pose others on your side have made, than you have on your own research as to the particular point now in view ? I ask this question with a desire to lead you and others to useful reflec- tion ; because I verily think that some suppose you have done much more by way of critical and impartial inquiry than is a matter of fact, and that you are under the same mistake as to what others before you, and others of the present day have done. If all such mistakes were well rectified, then it might be hoped, that you and other Trinitarians would set about such inquiry, as I believe never yet failed to end in a conviction, that the most high God is one, and but one person. But so long as you shall feel confident, that many great and good men have done by way of inquiry what in fact they never did ; and so long as many in like manner shall rely on yourself, and on other writers, no less deficient, it Avill seem needless, as it is very often expressed. " to go over all the ground again," 20 LETTER VII. Containing arguments, resulting from liie various ilufiiiiiions given by Triuita-' riuus, and froiri tbeir maimer ot' treating opijoneiils. Sir, Another thing, Avhich seems to me worthy of your very serious consideration, is the great diversity in the explanations* of those, who have passed for Trinitarians. If the doctrine, for which you so earnestly contend, be true, it certainly is true in some definite sense. And one would suppose, that sense would be easily found the scriptures, if there be any such thintj as revelation concerning; the matter. How then has it happen- ed, that so many, and such diverse opinions have been given as to the meaning of trie words three persons in one God ? Why lias one cla^s of Trinitarians believed, that there are three agents, each possessed of all divine perfections ; another, that one being acts in three different offices ; another, that three principal attributes of Deity are personified ; another, that the three persons designate three positions of the same Divine Being ; another, that there arc '' three somewhats"' or " three somet/dngs" in the one God ; and another, that it is proper to use the triune phraseology without any given sense, it being, in their view, irreverent, if not impious, to attempt, or even to inquire after any definition or explanation I These, Sir, are but a part of the many ways, in which different classes of Trinita- rians have endeavoured to justify their use of triune language, in the most solemn transactions and acts of religious worship. 1:-. there not, then, much reason to doubt, whether there be in the bible any real foundation for any use of the common Trini- tarian forms ? But anothel" thing of still more importance to be considered, is the manner, in which you, and others on your side, have treated conscientious dissenters from your doctrine. Is it not, in the view of wise observers, characteristic of the most erro- neous sectarians, to rely on a certain round of specious argu- ments, regardless of whatever is said to shew their fallacy, and never fairly meeting the arguments, which support the truth against them ? On the other hand, is it not characteristic of those, who have the truth on their side, to give strong reasons for their opinions, at the same time pointing out the fallacy of tlic most specious arguments, which are urged in support of error ? Now, Sir, have not very strong scripture reasons been given in support of opinions contrary to yours, and has it not been fairly shewn, that there is material defect in all the argu- ments, on which you and other Trinitarians rely ? But where is the manly attempt to point out any fallacy in the main argu- ments, urged in support of opinions contrary to yours ? Or where is the manly reply to what has been said to point out the 21 ^ * fallacy of Trinitarian ar[^uments ? Where is any thing, which has been directed against your opponents in any other manner than in that which is characteristic of a bad cause ? If you really have the truth on your side, then certainly it may be clearly shewn, that there is material defect in the main argu- ments urged in support of contrary opinions ; and if it can be made to appear, that your arguments are not so defective as they have been represented, why has this been omitted ? Why have you and others continued to repeat arguments, the suppo- sed fallacy of which has been often pointed out, without taking any notice of what has been said to show their defect ? And in- stead of doing, as you have done, in respect to opinions contra- ry to your own, why have you not fairly met the arguments urg- ed in support of such opinions, clearly exposing such defects, as ever can be found in arguments used to support error ? After I had become seriously apprehensive, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not founded in truth, instead of making any secret of such apprehensions, I conversed in the most frank and open manner with brethren in the ministry, as often as I had favourable opportunity, earnestly desiring them to point out any, and all supposed deficiency in my arguments In like manner, I also wrote to a large number of my ministerial acquaintance, laying myself entirely open, and expressing the most sincere and earnest desire that those, to whom I wrote, would not fail to shew me, if it were possible, wherein I misunderstood and mis- applied scripture, and wherein there was any other defect in such arguments, as to me appeared invincible. But no such help have I ever obtained. Ready as many have been to unite in the cry of heresy against me, not one man has ever attempted, in any con- versation, or in any letter, to point out a single defect in any ar- gument urged by me, either against your theory, or in support of my own. What, Sir, is the most natural inference from all this ? If truth is on your side, what has prevented such an exposure of the fallacy of my reasonings, as, in that case, brotherly faithful- ness must have required ? Is it not at least very natural for me to suppose, that ministers and others, with whom I have conver- sed, and to whom I have written, would gladly have pointed out any material defect in my arguments, if it had been in their power ? And if this were not in their power, have I not strong reason to believe, that I have truth on my side ? And what. Sir, is the fair inferrence from the manner, in which you and others have treated the author of " Bible News," and his writings ? After all your allusions to that author, and all your pointed in- sinuations against what he has published, in what page of the Panoplist shall be found a fair, candid refutation of his theory, or of a single argument he has used ? If it has not been in your power to set aside his theory by a fair exhibition of divine tes- timony, why have you said so much to excite alarm, and to fill 4, your readers with prejudice against his writings ? And if it has been in your power to make it clearly evident, that his theory is not founded in truth, why have you not done this, in a manly chrisiiun manner, instead of publishing such insinuations, in- vectives, and aspersions, as have appeared in several numbers of that work? In like manner-there is room to query in respect to all, that others have written against " Bible News." Much as you have praised some things published against it, yet among all the pamphlets it has occasioned, who can name one, in which any writer has iairly met, and refuted a single proposition, or a single argument of the so much reprobated work ? As it was easy for Tiiomas Paine to say many things against the bible, while it was not in his power to invalidate the arguments, which prove that the scriptures were written by inspiration of God; so it is easy for men to find something to say against every thing, which has been or can be written on the side of truth ; while at the same time nothing can be done to overthrow any sound principle, or to invalidate any sound argument in the view of men given to thorough investigation. And when men of ability and information indulge themselves in declamation, invective and reviling, against any opponent; especially when they do this without any attempt to detect him in any false reasoning, is it not to be inferred, that his arguments are too too sound to be answered in any fair and conclusive manner? Now, Sir, in respect to iha author before mentioned, who has attempted to point out any sophistry, or any perversion of divine testimony, or any unnatural inference from his premises, in what he has published on the subject, to which I refer ? Do not all tlie arguments found in his '» Bible News," all which arc found in his '' Address to the Trinitarian Clergy," and all which are iound in the several numbers of his " Appeal to the Candid," remain as much unanswered, as the best arguments, which have been stated to prove tlie divine authority of the holy scriptures ? In short, is not all, that you and others have printed against that author, more favourable it) the conclusion^ that his theory is cor- rect, and that his arguments are sound, than of the contrary ? For if you, or any other writer against him, had been able to make it appear, that his views are inconsistent with the tenor of scripture, how glailly would it have been done, even to the ru- in of his reputation, and that of all, who favour his sentiments. In this connexion I am constrained to ask, how it can be rea- sonable, or h-yw it can be safe, for you to represent, that men, against whom nothing else can be said, are in the way to final perdition, mer«.dy because they have given up the doctrine of three persons in one God, when for so doing they have given such weighty scripture reasons, as no man has yet been able to answer; and when the views, which they now entertain, are such as they can in the clearest manner express in the very language * 25 of divine testimony, used in the most perfect afjreemetaft wilJi the tenor of scripture ? I have further to ask, how it can be to the credit of Trinita- rianism, that it has been so long and so much supported by terrific denunciations against all, who do not continue to hold it fast ? It cannot be denied, that for a long time the state of things in every considerable pa!t of Christendom has been such, that there has been much to deter nven from free, impartial in- (Juiry on this subject, and fi om any other than the common pro- fession on this article. If it had been otherwise, is there not much reason to believe that the Trinitarian doctrine would have been generally given up long ago ? But, to say nothing more of former periods and other parts of the world, suppose, Sir, that ever since " Bible JVews" was published, there had been nothing in any part of this country to make any man afraid to inquire, and speak his mind ; and suppose, that the general voice, and the general conduct of the clergy had been of a nature to encourage every one to read, and examine, and to avow his sentiments without fear or restraint, is there not much reason to think, that, by this time, the apparent number on your side would have been far less than it is now ? If you will not allow this, or if you will not admit that a fear of censure and reproach has any influence in the support of your doctrine in question, then why will not you and all other Trinitarians agree to make a fair experiment in regard to this matter ? That is, why will you not all agree to lay aside all " bitterness, and wrath, and evil speaking," in respect to any, who differ from you ? Why will you not agree to treat all as good men, who, ia other respects, appear to be such, whatever they may believe as to the point in question ? Why will you not likewise agree to require of candidates lor the ministry, np more by way of con- fession of faith, than was required in the days of the apostles, and long afterwards.* Why will you not, in short, all agree to • " What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord ?" But while Trinitarians make it a ni!e to license no man for the miuisti-y without a contession that tioil is three persons, are they not very likely to save "chaff" and lose "wheat!" For is it not a very easy thing fur the most nnwortliy candidate to ho prcfiared with such words as he well knows will be rp(iiiireil ? And who but a man of integ- rity and uprightness is likely to hesitate about vising mch popular words, as are made indispensable, andyet understood very differently, so far as they are under- iitood at all? Besides, who can help seeing that it is next to impossible for young- men, wlio are determined to be ministers, to make any impartial imjuiry in re- spect to any article of faith, which they know they must consent to, or faifof tlieir object! And of what real value is any confession of faith which is not the fruit of thorough investigation, or of free impartial inquiry ? Is it not mere " chaff!" Not lougaf^o. a certain association refused to license a very worthy, pious, well informed yoiT»>';- man, merely because he could not, with a good conscience, say he believed, that God exists in three coequal persons. Soon after, the same asso- ciation licensed another man, who mast have been considereil in every other re- spect /ar inferior to the other; hut "he could frame to pronounce" the "Shibiio.. leth" which was required. Another, as I trust, well disposed vouog mnn, had, " '*'* .» 1 " 24 * «uch a course of conduct in all respects, as shall encourage all men to the most free and impartial inquiry on the subject, and to the most frank and open avowal of whatever they shall see cause to believe ? If all this should be done for any consid- erable time, and Trinitarianism should still prevail as much as ever, such prevalence would certainly be far more to the credit of the doctrine than what we now witness. And can you, Sir, give any good reason Avhy such an experiment as I have pro- posed, should not be made ? Is not gospel truth of a nature to support itself without the aid of carnal weapons or human de- vices ? And have not you and others already gone much too far by way of condemning some, of whoia Jesus 7nay not !)e asham- ed, when we shall stand before his judgnieiit se.;;: ? Did he not, when setting "an example that we should follow his steps," manifest such a spirit of forbearance, tenderness, and io\e to- wards such, as were by him knoum to be in greai^ error, as you and others have not manifested towards some, whom you oily imagme to be in great error ? Have not Hopkinsian Trinitarians already felt, in some degree, what it is to have their own meas- ure meted to them again ?* And how long shall such retribu- tion go the round among christians, ere we all learn, that no error in sentiment, of whatever magnitude, is such a transgres- sion of the law of Christ, as a want of love towards any man, in whom is found any measure of his spirit ? LETTER VIII. Containing an argument drawn from the recorded Tvorship of the ancient people of God. Sir, Another thing, which appears to me worthy of your very serious consideration is, that all the ancient people of God appear to have worshipped him invarlab/y as one, and but one person. We have, both in the old, and in the New Testament, many specimens of the manner, in which the people of God wor- shipped him ; but among thern, all there is not one example for triune worship. This, 1 believe, has been explicitly or implicit- ly acknowledged by all, who have written on your side. No such writer has, to my knowledge, produced an instance, which for a considerable time, dissented from the triuae doctrine ; but while he was preparing for the ministry, findinj; it necessary in order to get along according to riis wishes, he all at once appeared to have found some way lo use tlie 'I'rinitarian phraseology, so as to have it pas*. Accordingly he obtaintd license, and not long after was ordained. At the time of liis ordination, as i liavc been very credibly informed, he doubted whether there he property tliree persons, but said " there are three somethingi in the one God ! J /'" May it not with great truth be said, ♦* Brethren, these things ought not so to be ?" * This query has reference to what Las been done ip New York. * ^ 25 lie would venture to call worship in a triune fofm ; but hovv gladly would this have been done, if it had been possible. I am not however insensible, that it has been represented, that we have authority for triune worship in the baptizing commission given by our Lord to his disciples But why it should be con- sidered as an act of worship to baptize as Jesus has command- ed, I know not As far as I can see, it would be quite as cor- rect to speak of the proper use of the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," in any other case as an act of worship. But be this as it may, it remains true, that there is no example for triune worship in the bible, for no man will say, that it was an act of worship for our Lord to speak to his apostles, saying, •f " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" and it cannot be shewn, that the apostles or any other servant of Christ, men- tioned in the New Testament, ever u&ed these same words in the act of baptizing. I would not, however, be understood to call in question the propriety of such use of the words. But, however proper this may be, yet seeing there is no example of it in the New Testament, it betrays the weakness of your cause to quote the words in view, as scripture authority for triune worship And however it may be contended, that baptizing is an act of worship, there is certainly no explicit warrant for any man to address ;he Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, in any act of worship. Neither is there, to my knowl- edge, an iota of divine warrant to worship the Lord Jesus in any other character tlian that of " the king of the Jews," "the Son of God," "the first begotten," "the Lamb," and our " Lord to the glory of God the Father." It ieems never to have been duly considered by Trinitarians, that it is nothing to your purpose to prove, that Christ has been, and should be worshipped, unless it can be proved, that he has been and should be worshipped, as the supreme God. That we have scripture authority for worshipping him in soi^ie sense is not denied. Neither can it be denied, that the scriptures speak of worship of some sort, paid to other persons besides God and his beloved Son. Certainly you will not deny that on a time the assembled Israelites " bowed their heads and worshipped God, and the kmg-.*' And it is as certain, that you cannot ra- tionally infer from the worship paid to that temporal king of Israel, that he was the Most High God. By what authority then can you infer from any worship paid to Christ that he is the supreme God ? Surely it ought to be proved, as it never yet has been, that, in some instance of the worship mentioned in scripture, it was indisputably worship paid to our Lord as the supreme Jehovah, before the circumstance of his being^ worshipped is any more urged as evidence of his supreme divinity. 26 In short, Sir, as to the Son nnd the Holy Spirit, wli:tt precept or example can you produce, which will support you in that kind of worship, in which a writer on your side secins to glorv, when to a Unitarian he says " Wc worship, Sir, thr Fatheh, thk Son, and the Holy Ghost ? Do you worship this same God?"* Did any of the ancient Patriarchs " uorship this same Ciod ?" Did Moses or Joshua, or Samuel, or David or Solomon 'Mvor- ship this same God ?'' Did any of the prophe,is, or John thn baptist, or Jesus of Nazareth, or any of his apostles " worship this same God ? ' Were the apostles and others taught to "wor- ship this same God" when our Lord said "After this manner pray ye, Our Father who art in Heaven,'' Sec. ? Or is such wor- ship justified by these words of the Saviour, '■'■The trne wor- shijificrs shall worshi/i the Father P" Is it not rather presump- tuous for any man to add the Son and the Holy Spirit to make out an object of "o-z/e*' supreme worship? Is not this bcinf^ wise above what is written ? And may it not be well for you, and other Trinitarians to pause and consider seriously, whether such worship, as has not a single scripture precept or example for its support, does not render you very liable to the solcniU inter- rogation, '■'■Who hath required this at your ha^ids .?" LETTER IX. On the explicit and abundant tesiimony that God is one person. Siu, I WOULD next lead you to consider what appears to mc to be explicit and abundant divine testimony that God is but one person. It is plainly written in the scripture? of truth "To us there is but one God the Father." " A mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is onk,'' "the holy One," "the high and lofty Onk." Such is the explicit language of divine testimony. Accordingly in all, that is addressed to Jehovah through the whole bible, he is addressed as one and but one per- son. Also in all that is said of him, he is spoken of as one and but one person. I^ikewise in cVery thing he has himself saiil, he has spoken as one and but one person. For although he has in a very few instances used the plural number, yet in every such instance has he not spoken as one person in company with anoth- er, and not in one instance as though two or more persons were speaking at the same time ? Instead of wc will make man, the manner is '■'■Let us make man.'* And is it not in this manner in every instance, in which God is represented, as using the plural number when speaking of himself? And how can it be difficult for any man to account for such use of the plural num- * See the Review before quoted, p. i. 27 ber without supposing, that God is more than one person, when it is certainly no uncommon thing for one person to speak af- ter the same manner, when no other person unites in what is said I Of this are there not frequent instances in the sacred pages- as in other writings ? Besides, as the Word, the only- begotten of the Father, was v/ith him in the beginning, and as " without him there was not any thing made," is it not very natural to suppose that Jehovah spake to his Son in all the in- stances to which reference is now made ? But if it be admitted, that such a manner of speaking would have been proof of a plurality of persons iu the Deity ; if the same had been common through the bible, what then is the ©verbalancing amount of evidence, that God is but one person, arising from the use of the singular num.ber by, and of, and to God, in the proportion of more than a thousand instances to Gne I In short, Sir, supposing it to be a fact that God is but one person, how could this have been made, by divine testimo- ny, more evident than it is made ; except that it might have been expressly affirmed that God is not three persons ? And why would not this have been just as superfluous as it would J^^)c for me to tell my readers, that I am not three persons ? LETTER X. On tJie want of any good reason, wliy three divine persons should speak and bead- dressed in the siu-ular number. Sir, , It appears essential to the Trinitarian theory, that there should be some good reason, why three divine persons should invariably speak, be spoken to, and spoken of in the bible, as but one person would speak. Sec; but to to me it appears, that no such reason has been or can be given. As in the scriptures there is so much said by, and to, and of Jehovah, and all exactly in such language as must have been used, on the supposition that God is but one person, unless some good reason can be assign- ed, shewing why three divine persons should address others, and be>themselves addressed, as but one person, your theory in question must, it should seem, fall to the ground. What thea is the great reason assigned for such a departure from the in- variable use and signification of words in every other case ? All the reason, which has been, or can be given is, that the three supposed divine persons are one, and but one God. But, Sir, as currently as this reason has passed for a long time, it ap- pears to me utterly unavailing. For there is no other known case, in which a plurality of persons, however united, speak as but one. It is, therefore, contrary to all analogy, and contrary to all custom aaad ajl rule, as to the use ©f \yords in every Ian- 28 guage, to suppose that a God, existing in three persons, should speak and be addressed in the singular number. By saying there is but one God^ you assign no reason why three fiersons should speak as but one fiernon. You say, "God is one in es- sence.'' Be it so ; yet you say, this same God is three ficrsonn. Certainly, then, these three persons could properly speak after this manner, We, Our., Us, Sec. This Trinitarians grunt, by drawing an argument, from the few instances to be found, of the use of plural words by Jehovah. In so doing you certainly ad- mit, and even contend, that, althougli there is but one God. yet this one God is in such a sense three persons, that he can with propriety speak in plural language exactly as any other three persons would properly speak. This being as you suppose ; th«n Avhy is not all that is said by, and concerning Jehovah, in the plural number? If, "in the mode of the divine existence," there is a proper foundation for God to speak once as any oth- er three persons would speak, why is there not the same foun- dation for him to speak always in the same manner ? Yes, and if there be a proper foundation for him to speak once as three other persons would speak, how can it be otherwise than as improper for him ever to speak as but one person, as it would be for any other three persons to speak as but one ? Would you say again, "because he is but one God ?" I reply, he is not, as you say, one God in any such sense as renders it improper for him to speak as three fiersons. What, then, can it be short of a gross absurdity, and a palpable contradiction to say, also, that it is jirojicr for him to speah as but one person ? Truly, Sir, it does appear to me, that we should estimate the reason, which God has given u.s so highly as not to admit that it is perfectly proper for God to speak as three persons, and at the same time as proper for him to speak as but one person, without the most explicit, direct and positive evidei;ce, that all this is true. Contend as much as you will for the unity of God, yet, so long as you say he is three persons, the unity contended for amounts to no reason, why he should speak and be spoken to, and of, as but one person. Whatever may be his unity, if he be not one person only, there can be no reason why he should address oth- ers, and be addressed as but one. Moreover, you say there are three fiersons in one God; but why may you not with equal propriety say there are three Gods in one person? I really do not see Avhy this would be any more inconsistent with propriety, nor why it would be any more in- consistent with divine testimony. In fact, to gay there are three Gods in one person seems less inconsistent with scripture lan- guage and more accordant with some Trinitarian arguments, than to say " there are three persons in one God " By your writers much use is made of what is found in the beginning of John's gospel, and in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews, 29 ISut what is there in either of those passages, which so much favours the hypothesis of one God in three persons, as that of three Gods in one person ? In one passage we read of tha Word, who was in the heginning with God, and was God. Here we find in some sense more Gods than one ; but no inti- mation is given of more than one person in any God. Like- wise in fhe other passage we find it written, that " unto the Son God saith, Thy throne O God is forever and ever." Here also we find mention of two Gods, but no intimation that any God is more than one person. Indeed, in connexion with the words last quoted, the most high God is expressly represented as but one person ; for the Son is there spoken of as " the ex- press image of his peksox.'' Do not these things really seena more favourable to the supposition, that there arc three Gods in one person, than to your theory ? Besides, Trinitarian writers speak of certain Hebrew words, which are applied to God, and say the import of each of those words is " Gods.''* VVhy then would you not be more consistent in contending for a plurality of Gods in one person than for a plurality of persons in one God ? ;^y thus changing your theory, is it not evident that you would render it far more consistent with all ihat Jehovah says, with all that is addressed to him, and with all that is said of him as one, and but one person ? And as to the passages in the bi- ble, which seem to imply that there is but one supieme God, Would it not be far more easy to devise some plausible way to reconcile them with the suggested hypothesis, than it can be to find any way to reconcile all scripture with your present theory ? It is further to be considered, that Trinitarians have gene- rally denied, that there is more than one being essentially di- vine. They have generally spoken of God as but one being, and yet as three persons. Can you. Sir, give any good reason for this ? Are not the terms persoyi and being in such a sense syn- onymous, that it would be just as consistent to say there are three beings in one person, as it is to say there are three per- sons in one being ? Would not this altera.tion also serve to make your whole theory more consistent with itself? For it is an es- sential thing in your theory, that Jesus Christ is both God and man in one person. Here then you have two beings in one per- son. And by what rule can you have in one part of your theory three persons in one being, and in another part of it tivo beings in one pernon ? Can these things so hold together as to be con- sidered eternal truth of the highest importance for all to re- ceive ? The design of these queries is to lead you and others lo reflect on that arbitrary, and improper use of words ivithonC knowledge, by which it appears to me, that multitudes have been misled to the unspeakable injury of our holy religion, 5 so LETTER XI. On (lie insupt'iabic tlinRcuUies in respect to the supposed coiijples character of Christ, Sir, It is very evident, that the truth of your theory in ques- tion very much depends on the correctness of the hypothesis, that Jesus Christ is both God and man in one complex person ; but in respect to this supposed union I find insuperable diffi- culties. You will, I think, reidily admit, that if "a being, pos- sessed of all divine perfections," and a proper man, possessed of soul and body, are not united as one person in our Lord, then the Nvhole triune doctrine must be without any good foundation. This then is a point, which demands very careful examination. And on what, Sir, does the hypothesis, now in question, rest ? Is it not of such an extraordinary character, that we should not receive it without finding it supported by the most explicit and positive testimony ? But where shall such testimony be found ? You will say, " Jesus Christ is called God, and is also called a man." Yes, Sir, and are not many other beings in scripture called Gods ? And is not Jehovah himself oalled a ;?;a?z, " a man of ivar ?" Is it not very vuisafe in many cases to give the strong- est sense to such words as are used in the bible I And should \vc not always avoid this, rather than to admit a great absurdity as a revealed truth ? Now permit me to ask seriously, whether it be possible to form a more extravagant, or a more monstrous supposition, than to suppose that three divine persons and one proper man are all so united, as to constitute but one and the same individual being ? Is not this more than mystery ? Is it not the very height of absurdity ? And can it be that we are re- quired to believe any such thing as gospel truth, without such testimony, as cannot be found in the bible ? Again, I ask, se- riously, is it not in the nature of things impossible, that any two persons should become so united as to constitute but one per- son ? Is there any thing in the whole field of analogy to fiivour this notion I Is it not coiitrary to every dictate of reason and common sense ? Is it not totally inconsistent with every idea we can form of personal properties ? And is it not as much a pal- pable contradiction to say, that two beings may be so united as to constitute but one person, as it would be to say, that one and the same being may cease to exist, and yet continue to exist at the same time ? Moreover, if it be true that Christ is both God and man, or if it be true that "a being possessed of all divine perfections" is so united to another being possessed of all the properties of a man, as to constitute but one person, then must it not unavoid- ably follow, that one part of this person was perfectly indepen- dent, while the other wa§ absolutely dependent ? That one part of this person was almighty, while the other was feeble ? That one part of tMs person knew all things, while the other knew com- paratively nothing-? That one part of this person possessed all things, Avbiic the other had not where to rest ? That one part of this person felt no privation, weariness, or want, Vv'hile the oth- er was subject to poverty, labour, fatigue, hunger, and thirst ? And that one part of this person had infinite enjoyment, while the*other was sorrowful unto death, and endured the most ex- quisite torture and anguish ? Are not all these, and other like contrarieties and apparent impossibilities, necessarily involved in the supposed union of God and man in the person of Christ ? And what could appear more incongruous ? Yea, what can ap- pear more impossible than it is, that one and the same person should be able and not able, at the same time, to do the same things ? Should know and not know, at the same time, the same things ? Should possess and not possess, at the same time, the same things ? Should receive and not receive, at the same time, the same things? And should suffer and not sufler, at the same time^ the same things, and even the same death ? But in respect to the supposed union there are still further, if not greater difficulties. By one of your late writers it is ex- pressly said, that Christ is " a being possessed of all divine at- tributes."* This is the testimony of a Trinitarian concerning Christ. Now, Sir, I ask very seriously, why did not some one of the inspired prophets explicitly give the same testimo- ny concerning the Messiah, ^vho was to come ? Why did not John the baptist do the same ? And, especially, why did not " the faithful and true witness," in some instance, on some occasion, explicitly give the same testimony concerning himself? As he appeared "in fashion as a man '' and "a prophet like unto Mo- ses," it certainly was not very natural for him to be taken for " a being possessed of all divine perfections," without some very explicit testimony, and very positive evidence to this purpose. This, it should seem, Avas the less to be expected, because the great lawgiver, on whom the Jews had great reliance, had only said, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me."" In view of this and other pro- phetic testimony of like import, was it to be expected that any, who saw and heard " Jesus of Nazareth " would acknowledge him in the character of " a being possessed of all divine per- fections," without the most explicit and positive assurance of this fact ? Why then did not our Lord, who " for this end was born, and for this purpose came into the world to bear witness to the truth," why did he not on some occasion as plainly ex- press his own "essential divinity " as Trinitarians do now ? Yea, * See the Review, before quoted, in several places. 32 why did he say so many things of very contrary import without ut- tering, at any time, one sentence to prevent what you consider such a dreadful mistake as those are under, who do not own and worship him as "God, possessing all divine attributes ?" Why did he so often speak of himself as "the Son of a man," and never m u single instance assume to liimself any hi[!;her character than that of "the Son of God ?'' As you suppose he was really man as well as God, it is granted, that it is in a sense consistent with your views, tHat we should find liim speaking of himself as " the Son of man;'' but as, according to your theory, it was un- speakably more important that he should be known as "the true God," how can you account for it, that he never did so much as once explicitly give any such testimony ? Among his sayings there are many, very many things, which you would say he spake as a man. But where are those things, whicJi lie spake as God ? If he was as really God as man, he must hiLve spoken, we shnnjd think, at least somvtimcs^ in hii highest char- acter. But can you, Sir, point to a single instance, in which he spake as no one less than "a being possessed of all divine at- tributes" could speak? Certainly I have no knovvledge of any such thing in his whole testimony. In his discourses, I often find such things, as it appears to me " a being possessed of all divine attributes" could not say ; but not one, which a being, who had received his all from God, could not say with truth and propriety.^ I have further to ask, why our Lord was not careful to let it be distinctly known when he spake as a man, and when he spake as God ? According to your views one would think it must have been essential to his acting in char- acter as " the faithful and true witness," to have marked ycry explicitly such an important distinction. When in one of his epistles the apostle Paul said some things by divine inspiration, and others of his own judgment, he was very careful to let his readers know what they must receive as divine, and what as his own testimony. Now, Sir, if our Lord had been really God and man, speaking sometimes in one character, and at other times in the other character, would^he not have been as careful to mark this very important distinction to the clear understand- ing of all men, as Paul was to do, as just stated ? And seeing this faithful witness never did, on any occasion, give any inti- mation, that he ever spake otherwise than as one sent by his Father and dependent on him, is there not great reason to be- lieve that your doctrine is not founded in truth ? But what is, in my view, the greatest difliculty in respect to the supposed union of two beings in the person of Christ, is yet to be urged. Is it not, Sir, utterly impossible for "a being possessed of all divine attributes" to be so united with an infe- rior being, as to make it consistent with truth for him to say such things, as run through the whole testimony of our Lord ? 53 Yovl certainly will not deny, that immutability is one of the at- tributes or perfections essential to the character of the true, God. Does it not then unavoidably follow, that if our Lord •was ever "possessed of all divine attributes" he continued to have all the same attributes when " he was made of the seed of David accordinfj to the flesh r" His union v/ith a body pre- pared for him, or his taking, as you, I conclude, suppose he did, a htunan soul and body into personal union with his divinityj could in no degree take away, exclude, or diminish any of his " divine perfections." How then could it be consistent with truth for him to say, " My Father is greater than I." "I can of mine own self do nothing." " The Son can do nothing of himself, ' " The living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father I" How, Sir, could " a being, possessiiig all divine at- tributes" truly say these and many other things of like import ? I know very well, that the common reply to such queries is, " he said such things as a man." But, Sir, his being in the sense that you suppose a man, does not alter the fact in respect to his divine attributes " Suppose it had bceii the " one God the Father, who had taken a man into the highest possible union with himself, could this have made it consistent v.'ith truth for him to have said, " The Son is greater than /," "I can of myself do nothing." "The Father can do nothing of himself?" Do you not at once perceive that nothing more in- consistent could be imagined ? But if in the highest possible union with a man the almighty Father would continue as al- mighty as ever, why must it not have been exactly so with another person " essentially equal to the Father" in the same supposed union, with a man ? Again, if the eternal Father should take any man into the highest possible union with him- self, can you conceive that the man so united to God could need at any time any such supply, us would not naturally, and even iieceasarily result from his union with Deity ? Or can you conceive that a man so united to the almighty Father could pos- sibly have any occasion to pray to any other divine person under any possible circumstances whatever ? How then on your own ground do you account for it, that the man Christ Jesus was so much a man of prayer, addressing all his petitions invariably to the Father ? I conclude you will by no means say, that our Lord, in his character as "a being possessed of all divine attri- butes," had any occasion to pray. It wjs, you undoubtedly hold, only in his character as a man, that he did or could jiray. For " God cannot deny himself." But still the great question is, why our Lord had, even in his character as a man, any occasion to pray ? Were not " all divine perfections" enough to supply all his need as a man ? Or, in other words, what could his sup- posed human nature ever need, which his supposed divine na- ture could not always supply ? What occasion then could Christ 54 have at any time lo ask any thing of the Father ? Yea, how was it even possible for him to receive any thing from the Father ? Having within himself "all divine perfections," what could be given even for his supposed human nature, which he did not already possess? Is there not enough in one "being possessed of all divine attributes'' to iiil millions of millions of human souls with all that they could possibly receive, and yet would not the fountain ovei Jlow as much as ever ? Admitting then that one human soul was in the highest possible manner united to *' a being possessed of all divine perfections," how coviid this render it possible for thut same " being essentially divine" to Jiave in any sense," all judgment committed unto him ? Or to have in any sense " the spirit without measure gi-uen unto liim V Or to have in any sense " all power given unto him in heaven and on earth ?" And above all, how could the supposed union of a human soul with " a being possessed of all divine at- tributes" rcnder'lt possible for that same " being essentially divine" to need at any time, in any sense, " An angel from HEAVEN TO sTiiENGTHEN HIM ?" And how could the Same be-, ing, with all his divine perfections, be brought into a situation, in which he could Avith propriety say, " My God, my God, ■vvRY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?" Now, Sir, in vicw of thesc things, can you avoid seeing that the whole history of our Lord is exceedingly fictitious and hyperbolical, or that he is not, as has been so confidently affirmed, " a being, possessed of all divine perfection," " essentially equal to the Father?" LETTER XIL Au attempt to sliew, that nothing is gained by ascribing supreme divinity to ou^. Lord. Sir, To me it appears very evident that the supreme divini- divinity, which Trinitarians ascribe to our Lord, and that the distinct personality, which they ascribe to the Holy Spirit, are utterly superfluous. By writers on your side it is represented, that your doctrine is the '• broad foundation of Christianity." That those, who deny it, trust in an arm of flesh," and have " no God, no Saviour, no Comforter."* But why all this reproach ? Is not one divine agent, or one person, possessed of all divine attributes, as sxifficient for the government of the universe as any number of such persons could be ? Could a plurality of such persons eflfect, or accomplish any thing, which cannot be done by one person of unbounded perfection ? And is not the highest interest of the universe as safe in the hands, and under the management of one such person as it could be in the hands and under the management of more than one ? * See an address to the churc+ies by the General Associalioa of N. Hampshire. 35 In particular as it respects the salvation of lost rnen, wliat could be effected for our real benefit by three divine persons, which cannot be effected by the almighty power, infinite wis- dom, and unbounded goodness of one scU-e:;istent almighty agent ? Could not one such agent, v/ithout any to counsel him, devise the most perfect plan foi' our recovery fi-om sin and woe, to holiness and felicity ? Could not one such person pro* vide the necessary Mediator, furnish him with all the necessa- ry cpialifications, give all the requisite authority, and grant to him all the needful aid to enable him to go thvough all the work of our redemption ? Could not one such person also provide all the means, and all- the requisite instruments to carry into effect his saving purpose ? And could not one such person likewise *' pour out" or " shed forth" enough of " His Spirit" to render the provided means effectual to the renovation, sanctlficationj consolation, and salvation of all those, who shull finally inherit his everlasting kingdom? Can this be denied? Or can it even be pretended, that three divine persons could inore easily ^ or in any respect better accomplish all that has been mentioned, than it could be done by one self- existent, almighty agent? If not, then so far as we can see, is not the essential divinity, which you ascribe to our Lord, and is not the distinct personali- ty, which you ascribe to the Holy Spirit, utterly supeiHuous ? I know, however, that it is often represented that a Media- tor without supreme divinity is not a proper object of trust and confidence for such guilty, needy creatures as we are. It is often said, that no one less than a person essentially divine could make the necessary atonement for sin, or be worthy to be trusted with the keeping of our souls. But who is the best and the only adequate judge in respect to the attributes, v/ith- out which a proper atonement could not be made ? Are v/e to set up our own jvidgment as to what was requisite in this case, and then infer from it what is the character of real [Mediator? Should we not rather consider, that the Most High himself was the only proper person to decide hov/ much should be done and suffered by way of atonement ? And should we not search the scriptures to see what they, in their ovt'n simplicity, testify of Christ ; not having prepared ourselves by our own foolish reasonings to misunderstand, or to pervert divine testimony? Besides, what is the real amount of gain in respect to the atonement, resulting from the Trinitarian view of Christ ?. Earnestly as you all contend, that he is the true God, yet do any of you believe, that as God, in the highest sense, he really suffered for our redemption ? One of your late writers says, " We hold Jesus Christ to be God and man united in one per- son, and that this one com/ilcx person suffered and died. We do not say that the ever blessed God separately from man suf- 36 fered and died, but v/c do say that Jesus Christ as God and mmi in one person did suffer and die.'"'* Now, Sir, are not tiiese words without knowledge I And would the author just quoted, or would you, after all, allow " that the ever blessed God" did sufier in any real sense or degree to make atonement for sin ? This may not be preduuied. It must then iollow after all that has been or can be said about "God and man in one complex person," according- to your own theory, that all the real suffering for our offences was endured by that part of the supposed " complex person," which was " the oti'spring of Da- vid, ' and had no existence until about the time of Augustus Csesar. Such is the simple fact in respect to the point now in question, as no Trinitarian can fairly deny. But how differ- ent, how exceedingly difterent is that, which to me appears to be the true scripture representation as to what has been done and suffered for our salvation ! "The Word, who was in the beginning with God was made flesh," — the " Son, by whom God iTiade the worlds" " was made of the seed of David ac- coiding to the flesh" by taking "a body prepared for him" " and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross !" In this high sense "God spared not his own Son; but freely de- livered him up for us all." Yes, "though he were a Son," " the Son of the Highest," " brought forth" " and set up from everlasting," "he learned obedience by the things, which HE suffered,'' " giving HIMSELF for us." " The only begotten, ■who was in the bosom of the Father," " loved before the foun- dation of the world" " came forth from the Fathei', and came into the world" "in the form of a servant" and died for our of- fences." " The Lord from heaven," who " had glory with the Father before the world was," became poor for our sakes," "and suffered the just for Jie unjust to bring us unto God." " The Son of the Father in truth and love," '' the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person," through whom "God was manifested in the flesh," and unto whom was given " the Spirit not by measure," >vas " set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." Such, Sir, is the view entertained of "Christ as our passover sacrificed for us," by men, who are charged with a denial " of the Lord, who bought them." And can this view of the subject be fairly coinpared with your own, whthout producing conv'ction in your own nund, that as it re- spects the atonement made for our sins, that essential divinity, ■which you ascribe to our Lord, is useless, and far more than useless ? And is it not in respect to the whole Avork of the Mediator between God and men ? For while you ascribe to Christ the character of the true God, can you say that in any • Review bef'jrc quoted, p. 45. 37 part of this character he is a Mediator bettveen God and us; or that he is as God " our hlj^h Priest, entered into the hea- vens fur us; or that he is as God our " advocate with the Fa- ther ?" In short, is it not utterly impossible for you to point out any thing, which Christ, as the true God., has either reall'^ suf- fered, or really done, for tlie salvation of mankind ? And by as- cribing- " all divine perfections" to our Lord, do you not theoret- ically make the one Mediator, our hi;j;h priest in the heaveas- our advocate with the Father, and our exalted Prince and Saviour, 07ilij the humun part of a supposed complex person, instead of " the first born of every creature," " the Lord from heaven," who, consenting to the arduous work of our redemption, long- before his incarnation, said, " Lo, I come to do thy will, O God, — a body hast thou prepared me ? ' But will you, after all, contend, that in your supposed " God and man in one person" you have a more safe object of trust and confivience than can be found by those, who deny your the- ory ? I ask, then, wherein is your real highest object of trust different from ours ? Do you not habitually and really view Jesus Christ as "the way to the Father," and " come to God by him ?" And have you even theoretically, an ioia more in the God, to whom you come through the one Mediator, than we find in the " one God the Father ?" Are not all divine attri- butes the sum total of of your theoretical ultimate foundation of hope and confidence ? And can you avoid seeing, that we have precisely the same ultimate foundation ? Viewing the blessed Jesus as " the Son," whom the Father sent to be the Saviour of the world," viewing him as " the Lord from hea- ven," who was made a partaker of " flesh and blood," and tast- ed death for us,'' and viewing him as one, in whom " it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell," we hold him as a Saviouv mighty to save to the uttermost, all, who come un- to God by him." Aiid if we do truly come to the Father through the mediation of his Son, have we not then, in as high a sense as you have, ail divine perfections to rest on for the accomplish- ment of all our salvation and all our desire ? In short, is it not all that we or you or any others can need, to have God for our Saviour through Jesus Christ ? And is not all the foundation the bible gives for your triune theory very clearly and beauti- fully comprized in the epistle of Paul to Titus, where he rep- resents that " GOD OUR SAVIOUR hath saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which HE shed on us abundantly through Jesus Chuist our Saviour ?" 6 38 LETTER XIII. 0:i the hariHonj- of Uiviiie testimony without involving the supreme divinity of Christ. And the coiiclusioi). SiR, It appears to me, that all, which the scriptures testify of Christ, may be very easily and fairly accounted for, without in- volving any such apparent inconsistencies and perplexities, as are involved in your theory. 1 do not, however, mean to in- clude in what the scriptures testify of Christ, all that you and others apply to him. For the Bible is so evidently destitute of any thing, which is explicit and peremptory to your purpose, that your v.riters apply to our Lord a number of passages, vv-hich, as I believe, have no such meaning as they give them, and which they could quite as easily, and more naiurally con- strue otherwise, if this would as well answer their purpose. As a specimen of such unfairness I vv'ill mention one instance, and attempt to shew hov/ easily the text, to which I refer, may he tak.cn fiom you. In the first ep'stle of John, the fifth chapter and twentieth verse, as your writers represent, our Lord is call- ed " the true God." Now, Sir, ought it not to have been re- membered, that the same inspired writer has elsewhere expli- citly taught us that the Father is " the only true God ?" And can there be a more palpable contradiction devised, than to say of one person, that he is " the orUy true God, and yet of another person, that he is " the true God V Should any inspired writer be considered as having intended to affirm such opposite propo- sitions \vithout giving any reason or explanation ? But this is not all. By the same rule that John is m.ade to say, that Christ is the true God, he would be made to say, that our Lord is a deceiver and an antichrist. The whole verse, in which the words " the true God" are found, in our common translations stand thus, " And we know, that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we might know him, that is true ; and \vc are in him, that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." Now, Sir, please to look at the seventh verse of the second epistle of John. "For many deceivers are gone into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'' Do you not at once see, that an inspired writer has been very unfairly treated, to carry a point ? By making the word " This'' in the first case refer to Jesus Christ last men- tioned, instead of tettint^ it refer " to him that is true," the text is made to say, that Christ is the true God. Apply the same rule in the other case, and make the word " i liis" refer to the lust instead of the foregoing- noun, and the beloved disciplf 39 is as fairly made to say, that his beloved Lord is <^ a deceiver and an antichrist," as many have made him say, that Christ is the t>-ue God. Is it not a bad cause, which requires such per- version of divine testimony for its support ; or which hurries its advocates to apply scripture as the inspired writers never meant, and as a little care by way of fairly comparing scripture ■with scripture would prevent ? I shall now attempt to show how easily and fairly a number of such texts, as Trinitarians build upon, may be understood in agreement with the doctrine, that "To us there is but one God the Father, by whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." Does the Prophet Isaiah in the name, by which he says the Messiah should be ''called" include " the mighty God, the everlasting Father ?" It is however to be considered, that he has first said "unto us a child is born, and unto us a iion i.'i given." Now a son is a son still, whatever names may be given him. Any son may have his father's names and titles ; yet he remains a son and a distinct being from his father. Besides, our Lord is in fact the mighty God and the everlasting Father of his people when compared with Moses and many others, who have iDcen called gods and fathers to mankind. Is Christ again in the first of John's gospel called God ? In the same connexion he is clearly distinguished from the supreme God, by being called the "Word, who was in the beginning with God;" and by his being designated as a person, whose glory is that " of the only begotten of the Father." Is he likewise called God in the first chapter to the Hebrcv»s ' There also he is clearly distinguished from the Most High, who, unto the Son saith, "thy throne O God is forever and ever — God even THY GOD hath anointed Thee." And in the same connexion Christ is spoken of as having "by inheriiaticf a more excellent name than the angels," and this reason is given, 'For unto which of the angels hath God said, "Thou art my son, this day have Ibegotten Thee ?■' Is our Lord in another place spoken of as "over all, God blessed forever V If this text, as we have it, is correctly rendered, yet where is the difficulty, seeing that Christ has said " all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ;" and it is further written, that "God hath made him to be the head over all things to the church ?" Is he further spoken of as one, " who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God ?" Who can say, that the word equal is so much as once used in the bible to express a perfect, absolute equality ? In the same sense as Ahithophel was David's equals so the word equal in the text just quoted may be fairly understood. Will you urge, that the Jews, on one occasion, understood Christ to make himself God, or equal with God ? If so, you would do well to 40 look carefully cit the closing part of the reply, which our Lorci made to repel the groundless objection of the Jews, " Say yc of him, whom the Father hath sauctiSed and sent into the world, "thou blasphemest because I said t am the Son of G'.D ?" Did our Lord say to his disciples, " He that hath seen me hath acen the Father?" So, in the first chapter to the Ro- mans, Paul says, " The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.'' Does Jesus say, " that all men sh.ould honour the Son, even as they hoi^our the Father ? At the same time he assigns this reason for it, namely, "the Fulhcr hath ccrmnitted ah judgment unto the Son." If we vof^ld by no means neglect to honour the most high God, v.'c mi.st honour his Son, as his Son and his meastnffcr, unto whom he ha.th committed all judgment. Do we in several instances read of worship paid to Christ ? Yet we find no instance of his being worshipped as the supreme God. "When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world," he saith, " and let all the angels of God worship him !" Worship Mhom ? " The first begotten." The v/ise men from the east are said to have worshipped the young child Jesus ; but it was in the character of one "born king of the Jews." In the visions of the revelator, the heavenly millions are represented as worshipping more than one being Rut how different is their worship from that of Trinitarians ? They ascribe "blessing and glory and honour unto him, who sitteth on the throne and unto the LAMB f/iat nvas slal?7,''—^^ unto GOD and the LAMB." Should every knee bend at the name of Je- sus ? Yes, because that 'God hath highly exalted him, and hath given him a name, which is above every name," therefore " at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.''' Does Jesus say, " I am the first and the last ?" he also adds, '^ I am he that liveth and was dead." And certainly he was neither before, nor is he above his Father. But he is the first and the last iis there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved " Do the scriptures in some instances ascribe the work of creation to Christ ? Yes, and also inform us, that "God huth made all things by Jesus Christ." In like manner they ascribe the same things to God and to bis servant Moses, and the same tliings to Solomon, and to those employed by him in building ilic Icniple. Is the Son of God spoken of as a being " upholding all things by the vord of his power ?" At the same time we are taught, that " all fionvcr is gi-ven unto him.'''' Likewise as to all the knowledge, and wisdom, and every thing he possesses, is it not enough, that we are exprcsidy told, that " it hath pleased thu 41 Bather that is him should all fulness dwell," "all the fulness of the godhead." Shall it be disputed, whether it were possible for God to communicate what his word declares that he has communicated to his beloved Son ? Finally, should believers and their children through every age be baptised into the name of tlie Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? What could be more perlinrnt than this, seeing that "the one God the Father," through the " one Mediator, ' is pleased to " shed forth'' His Spirit to save men by that washing of regeneration, signified by christian baptism ? Nnw, Sir, will you not allow, that I have brought to view from the bible the principal things, on which you and other Trinitarians rely for the sup- port of the doctrine in question ? And will you not also allow, that the construction, which I have given to such scripture, appears as easy and as fair, as that usually given on your owa side ? Or, if you will not allow this, may you not have reason to fear, that it may be owing to very strong, and very interest- ed prepossessions ? Or admitting, that in some instances the construction I have given of divine testimony is not so natural and just, as it should be ; yet is it not made clearly evident, that it is by no means difficult to find in all, or in nearly all that the scriptures testily of Christ, some clear, important meaning, such as harmonizes with all other scripture, without involving- any such paradox as that of two beings in one person, or as that of three persons in one being, or in one God." Where then is the necessity of contending for any such hypothesis? And by what rule can any such theory be considered bible doctrine ? Is it not undeniable, that no such hypothesis is stated in the sacred pages ? Yea, and is it not undeniable, that the hypothe- sis of three persons in one divine being, and also that of two beings in the person of Christ, do each of them clash, in a great degree, with the plainest meaning of very many passages, which M'e find in the volume of inspiration ? And can you de- ny, that cich of the just mentioned hypotheses is exceedingly perplexing to the human mind ? Or can you deny, that they really involve a great portion of scripture in very great obscu- rity, and in many, very many, apparent contradictions ? Must it not be wrong, extremely wrong, thus to darken sacred counsel by words and hypotheses of mere human device, requiring all men to subscribe to the same, under heavy pains and penalties ? I cannot doubt, that you and many other discerning Trinitarians have at times felt a ereat degree of perplexity respecting the supposed Trinity in unity, and the supposed union of two intel- ligent beings in the person of Christ. Yet you have not been willing to believe, that the wisdom of men has been the sole origin of these strange things ! They have so long been con- sidered essentials in Christianity, and so many men of great re- 4£ nown for talents and piety have so oficn uttered the most terri- fic denunciations against ail, who depart from, or call in ques- tion the truth of such orthodoxy, that, as I believe, all such in- quiry, as the case requires, has been either wholly prevented, or rendered very superficial. This may at first seem to you uncandid and uncharitable. But if you will duly consider, and fairly weigh all that I have now set before you, I am persuaded yru will not wonder, that it appears to me impos' ible for any rational creature to remain a Trinitarian after a patient, impar- tial, and thorough examination of the subject. And I will venture to say moreover, that if you could have for one hour that increased delightful view of the beautiful simplicity, and perfect harmony of divine testimony, and thus enhancing view of the wonderful love of God in really giving his only begotten Son, and of the astonishing love of Christ in really giving " HIiN'iSELF FOR US," which are the consequence of rising above Trinitarian prepossessions and prejudices, you would then view what I have written, as a labour of Jove, and would be thankful for the same to the God of all grace. The things, which I have now set before you, are the fruit of sober, careful, and prayerful inquicct to be treated as prag- maticat and insolent innovators, disturbers of the public peace, and the greatest enemies of religion." p. I8'2. *' A gentleman of eminence, talking one day witli the late 1)ishop of L — , con- cerning Dr. Clarke, said, that he was surprised the convocation had set themselves to persecute with so much violence, a man, who was an ornament, and an honour to the whole order, by his great learning and sense. Sense ! cried the bishop, indeed I think Dr. Clark is very deficient in that; for if he had but common sense he would take more care of himself. O my lord, I understand you, (said the gentleman) but if neglecting a man's worldly interest proves, that he wants com- mon sense, 1 fear it will be found that the apostles, and our Lord himself, had no great share of it." p. 212. " Happy would it have been for the world, if men had rested their inquiries about religion, where God rested in his revelation of it. Only the clear light of truth can guide men to virtue. The doctrines, which ai-e dark and uncertain, can only lead men to darkness and uncertainty. What harm is it to us, if fools condemn us ? They have always, from the beginning of the world, exclaimed most against those, who would do them the greatest good." p. 135. 7 46 Mahometans ! Have pity also on the scattered, numerous, un- happy seed of Abraham, that triend of God, through whom, and through Avhose ofl'sprintr so great blessings have come on us Gentiles. Have pity on such perishing multitudes of our brethren of the human family, and lay aside, I entreat you, such controversial inventions, as render the everlasting gospel in their vienv, unworthy of their acceptation ! THE END. ^i^fi{^ '^^"^W^ ff- rti