/if 
 
 / X 
 
 t5 \ 
 
 ^:ju s od 2^ ..^^ ^:s. ^^ 
 
 PRIXCETOX, N.jJ. 
 
 x> €j >r -^ -r I c J :v o i.- 
 
 SAMUEL AG NEW, 
 
 OF P H I L A I) K L P H I A . PA. 
 
 '^ .^»>^S<^^5.;-^^3-<^^e-'-^^--^-!^3^ 
 
 j) Case, ■ ^'^'^'°" J-' 
 
 I Sht^lf. ^ Sectien..., |.... 
 
 I Book, No.... J.. 
 
 
•*^ 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 V 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/publicdiscussionOOplu 
 
PUBLIC DISCUSSION 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 
 
 ELDER FREDERICK PLUMMER, 
 christian; 
 
 AND THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM L. M'CALLA, 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN. 
 
 HELD AT RIDLEY, DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 on the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 2l8t of January, 1842. 
 
 .PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 KAY AND BROTHER, 122 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
 1842. 
 
Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the j'ear 1842, by 
 
 ELDER FREDERICK PLUMMER, 
 
 In the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania, 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY S. DOUGLAS WYETH, 
 
 NO. 7 PEAR STREET, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is proper to state that no pains have been 
 spared to give in the following pages a correct 
 Report of the Discussion which they purport to 
 contain. A firm, and it is believed, a just reliance 
 has been placed on the Reporter, in sentiment a 
 Trinitarian, for an honest and able performance 
 of his duty. To use the Reporter's own words: 
 
 "The arguments are believed to be fairly pre- 
 sented, as he has endeavored to act with perfect 
 impartiality towards all concerned. But, in a re- 
 port thus hastily prepared, errors will necessarily 
 occur, and for these the parties themselves should 
 not be held accountable. In some instances, where 
 books and pamphlets were read from during the 
 discussion, the substance has been faithfully pre- 
 served, but without a particular reference to the 
 works." 
 
 As the Reporter did not superintend the press, 
 the Printers employed to execute the work, were 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 charged to adhere rigidly to the manuscript copy; 
 and the beUef is entertained, on good grounds, 
 that they have not failed to obey the instructions 
 given them. 
 
 However, that no cause for complaint nor cavil 
 may exist, it has been deemed expedient to trans- 
 mit the original manuscript, as received from the 
 Reporter, to the Trustees of the Christian Society 
 at Ridley, in Delaware coimty, Pennsylvania, by 
 whose authority it has been published, to be by 
 them deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Dela- 
 ware county, at Chester, for safe keeping, refer- 
 ence, or comparison. 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 It is due to ourselves and to the public to make 
 the following statement : — On tiie first Smiday in 
 January, 1842, the following notice was handed to 
 us in our meeting-house, m Leiperville, and, by the 
 consent of the trustees, it was read : 
 
 ^^ Mr. Plunimer, 
 
 " It is expected that the Rev. Wm. L. M'Calla 
 will preach in the meeting-house in Leiperville, on 
 Thiursday evening next, January 6th, at 7 o'clock. 
 The congregation that worships there, is respectfully 
 invited to attend. 
 
 (Signed) *^ SAMUEL M. LEIPER.^ 
 
 ^j 
 
 In a labored controversial speech, continued more 
 than three hours, by Mr. M'Calla, our Society was 
 repeatedly denounced as " God-denying heretics," 
 and our sentiments were grossly misrepresented; 
 towards the close of which a challenge was given 
 to us to meet him in discussion. Our regard for the 
 Truth, and the Society which he had sa unceremo- 
 niously and unhandsomely assailed, demanded this 
 1 * (5) 
 
VI TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 effort at our hands. Our congregation unanimously 
 resolved to procure the best stenographer that we 
 could obtain, and to have the whole proceedings re- 
 ported for publication. In relation to the accuracy 
 of the work, the Reporter takes the responsibility 
 upon himself, and we think that those who heard 
 the debate will be satisfied with its correctness. 
 
 The object of controversy should be to elicit truths 
 and, when conducted in a right spirit, such will be 
 the result. This was our only desire in entering into 
 such an investigation which, we sincerely trust, has 
 terminated to the honour of the good cause. Con- 
 fident that Truth would sustain us, we were induced 
 to accept the challenge, without a day to prepare for 
 the contest. Our time, after the appointment, was 
 employed in fulfilUng prior engagements, until the 
 day of meetmg. For the want of a more systematic 
 arrangement of our arguments — for any accidental 
 omissions, or for the partial defence of important 
 points, this is our apology, 
 
 F. PLUMMER. 
 
PRELIMINARY. 
 
 The parties met on the 17th of January, 1842, 
 agreeably to previous arrangement, in the " Chris- 
 tian Church," in Leiperville, Delaware county, 
 Pennsylvania, for the purpose of agreeing upon the 
 rules which should govern the discussion. A nume- 
 rous assemblage of their friends were present. The 
 following rules prepared by Mr. M^Calla, were sub- 
 mitted by that gentleman, but were not satisfactory 
 to Mr. Plummer. 
 
 RULES OF CONFERENCE, 
 
 To be adopted and signed this 17th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1842, in Leiperville, Pennsylvania, by Frede- 
 rick Plummer, a Unitarian, and W. L. M'Calla, a 
 Trinitarian, on the question whether there is a plu- 
 rality of persons or intelhgent agents, each equally 
 claiming supreme and eternal divinity, in the one 
 Divine Essence, supreme, eternal and indivisible : or 
 whether there is a plurality of persons in the Divine 
 Essence. 
 
 1. The discussion shall be moderated by three 
 men, each of the parties choosing one, and the two 
 choosing a third, who is to be considered the Pre- 
 
 (7) 
 
8 
 
 sident of the Bench : none to be members of any 
 Church. 
 
 2. The Bench is not to decide the merits of the 
 question, nor the weight of argument, nor the ulti- 
 mate length of the debate; but they are to keep 
 order and settle points of order, according to these 
 written rules. 
 
 3. The parties shall be entitled to alternate ad- 
 dresses of thirty minutes m length, with this restric- 
 tion — that the time consumed in settling questions 
 of order, shall be deducted from the speaking time 
 of the party who shall be in the wrong. 
 
 4. The discussion to commence on to-morrow, the 
 third Tuesday and the 18th day of January, 1842, 
 at the Presbyterian Church of Ridley, Delaware 
 county, Pennsylvania, at 10 o'clock, A. M., and 
 close at 3 o'clock, P. M., and so on from day to day 
 until the parties shall be satisfied. 
 
 5. The debate shall be opened by one party the 
 first morning, and by the other party the second 
 morning, and so on from day to day, until the par- 
 ties shall be satisfied — so that the closing speeches 
 of days shall be alternated with perfect fairness. 
 
 6. If one party shall waive his right to speak, the 
 other may occupy the time which he shall have 
 relinquished ; and if one shall withdraw from the 
 debate, the other may proceed mitil he shall be 
 satisfied. 
 
 The first paragraph was so modified, at the sug- 
 gestion of INIr. Plummer, in relation to the question 
 for discussion, as to retain only the last clause — " Is 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 9 
 
 there a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence ?" 
 It was also agreed by the parties, that the Board of 
 Moderators should consist of Jive persons instead of 
 three — two to be chosen by each party, and the four 
 choosing the fifth, who should be considered the 
 President of the Board — and, also, that three of the 
 five should not be members of any church. 
 
 Considerable debate arose on the second proposed 
 rule, as to the propriety of empowering the Board of 
 Moderators to decide the merits of the question, or 
 the weight of the arguments ; and, also, on the fourth 
 and fifth rules, as to the opening and closing speeches, 
 and the propriety of limiting the discussion to a defi- 
 nite period. These were the only promment points 
 of difference between the parties, in the settlement 
 of the preliminary arrangements. 
 
 Mr. Plummer contended, that the debate should 
 be confined to a limited number of days ; and, that, 
 as Mr. M'Calla was the challenger, and consequently 
 would open the discussion, he, (Mr. P.) was justly 
 entitled to the closing speech. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said, that similar difficulties had 
 occurred in arranging the preliminaries of all the 
 discussions in which he had been engaged. In the 
 rules of conference proposed by Mr. Campbell, for 
 the government of their debate on Christian bap- 
 tism, a clause was introduced providing that the dis- 
 cussion should be continued until the people were 
 satisfied, or the moderators decided that enough had 
 been said. Mr. Kneeland, too, had claimed the 
 right of closing, as he considered himself to be the 
 challenged party, though he had privately and pub- 
 
10 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 licly given verbal and written invitations to the 
 clergy in general, to defend their faith in public de- 
 bate. Mr. Lane, at Milford, made the same claim, 
 and a similar statement. He (JNIr. M'C.) did not 
 desire nor need exclusive privileges. They could not 
 be secured to either by the principles of justice, nor 
 the usages of theological discussions. He claimed 
 no right which he was not willing to accord to his op- 
 ponent, but never would surrender the right of reply- 
 ing to his arguments. He had no wish to deprive his 
 opponent of the same right. To the application of a 
 gag-law he would never consent. The right of the 
 negative to close, was a new doctrine. The practice 
 in civil courts was the very opposite of what was here 
 claimed, for it gave to the affirmative the right of 
 both opening and closing. But he wished not to 
 take advantage of any such practice. His desire 
 was that each party should be heard fully and fairly, 
 imtil all their hot shot had been fired. If they had 
 not sense enough then to quit, their hearers would 
 probably close the debate, by leaving them to dis- 
 cuss the question alone. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. From the last remark of the 
 gentleman, he appears to expect a large meeting. 
 Whether large or small, I hope the discussion will 
 be so conducted as to redomid to the glory of God 
 and the benefit of our hearers. I came here to ask 
 nothing but what was right, and care nothing about 
 the gentleman's Kentucky or Philadelphia disputa- 
 tions. I asked nothing but perfect fairness, and am 
 willing the gentleman should occupy half the time. 
 It certainly will not be fair for either to have both 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 11 
 
 the opening and closing of the discussion ; nor is it 
 fair for the gentleman to claim the right of deter- 
 mining how long the discussion shall continue. That 
 should be left to the Moderators, by whose decision 
 I am willing to be governed. I do not fear the gen- 
 tleman's hot shot ; but one or the other must close 
 the discussion, and which is entitled to the closing 
 speech, it is by no means difficult to determine. 
 The gentleman has acted imfairly from the begin- 
 ning of this controversy. It was unfair for him to 
 advocate in this house, for three hours and a half, 
 his own peculiar doctrines, and denounce our society 
 as " God-denying heretics." If our views are wrong, 
 we are open to conviction. We have no creed to 
 defend, and desire only to embrace the truth of God. 
 
 Mr. M'Calla said he had been accused of un- 
 fairness — in occupying the desk of this house on a 
 former occasion. — He had understood that the hoiise 
 was built by Unitarians, and was a " Free Church." 
 If mistaken, he should like to be set right. He had 
 been requested to deliver a sermon in this free 
 church, and Mr. Plummer himself had given the 
 usual notice. He never intruded himself into the 
 pulpit of any denomination. 
 
 Where does my opponent get the right to deliver 
 the closing speech of the discussion ? I have yet to 
 see that any man has such a right. I do not claim 
 the right myself, nor can it be claimed as a right by 
 any one. The possession of such a right must be 
 the result of conventional agreement. Never will I 
 yield that as a right which can only be asked as a 
 favor. And I never heard that Moderators had the 
 
12 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 power to close a discussion, though the subject is fa- 
 miUar to me. They are appointed to preserve order 
 according to conventional rules previously established 
 — not to say what arguments we are to use and 
 what time we are to occupy. As to the bug-bear 
 that the discussion is to have no end, all those in 
 which I have ever engaged had a termination, and I 
 have no doubt that this about which we are talking, 
 if it ever begins, will have an end also. Like the 
 Kentucky horse-racer who considers the race nearly 
 won, when he sees the tail of his adversary's horse 
 switching, I shall be willing to close whenever I dis- 
 cover similar symptoms on the part of my opponent. 
 
 If any one is wilHng to take my place in the 
 discussion, I shall be perfectly satisfied to abdicate ; 
 but if I am to assume the responsibility, I must 
 be allowed to judge of my own arguments, and I 
 wish my adversary to do the same. I expected 
 when I came here to spend a long time and have a 
 hard tug before I obtained fair play. I will not 
 consent to have my hands tied, but give me fair play 
 and my own time, and in the strength of my Divine 
 Master, I would not fear to meet Daniel O'Comiell 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Plummer thought the gentleman's remarks 
 entirely irrelevant. He had nothing to say in reply, 
 unless it could be shown that the position he had 
 assumed was untenable. » 
 
 The gentleman appears to fear that if his hands are 
 tied he will not have sufficient time to fire all his 
 hot shot. I should suppose his hot shot would be 
 likely to come long before tlie close of the discus- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITr. 13 
 
 sion. I am perfectly willing to refer the whole mat- 
 ter to the Moderators, and to be governed by such 
 rules as they shall decide upon. I have been ex- 
 posed to the gentleman's cold shot long enough, and 
 am now ready to have his hot shot without further 
 debate. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla, I am willing to limit the discus- 
 sion, provided the right of closing is conceded by 
 my opponent. This is what I chiefly desire, as I 
 camiot conscientiously take the risk of having the 
 discussion brought to a close in the midst of my ar- 
 guments. I never can consent to have my arguments 
 cut in two by my adversary. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. It seems then that we are to have 
 no last speech, unless the gentleman's arguments 
 should be of such a character that they camiot be 
 cut in two. I should suppose, after the mmierous 
 battles he has '^fought and ivon,'^ the gentleman 
 would begm to have more confidence in hmiself. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla supposed his adversary thought his 
 own arguments so good, that they could not be cut 
 in two. For himself, he looked for strength to his Di- 
 vine Master, whose cause he came here to defend ; 
 but he could not consent to betray that cause into 
 the hands of his Master's adversary. If any one was 
 willmg to take his place in the discussion, and go on 
 with the gag applied, it would with him be quite as 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. No gag-law has been proposed 
 nor intended. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla said it was very evident his oppo- 
 nent did not intend that he should have fair play. 
 
14 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Would it not be fair play for 
 him to occupy half the time ? 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. It is all that I desire, but I can 
 never consent to betray my Master's cause, by putting 
 it into the power of my opponent to gag me. 
 
 Mr. Plummer never heard of a case where either 
 gentleman was allowed to speak or to close as he 
 pleased. Was willing, he repeated, to leave the pre- 
 liminaries for the Moderators to arrange, and to com- 
 mence the discussion to-morrow morning. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla came here to advocate a good cause, 
 i( permitted to do so with his hands untied. If not, 
 he should to-morrow give his argument in another 
 place, and leave his adversary to his own course. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. The gentleman, in the course of 
 this debate, has referred to the triumphant victories 
 won by him on former occasions, but that he had 
 never been able to obtain satisfactory rules without 
 a long tug. He now threatens to abandon the dis- 
 cussion and fight the battle alone. The gentleman 
 is at liberty to commence his Quixotic crusade as 
 soon as he pleases. He shall be at perfect liberty to 
 flog all Kentucky, and then go to Ireland and flog 
 O'Connell also. But if this discussion is to go on, 
 we must have equal rights, and a Board of Mo- 
 derators. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla again referred to rules adopted on 
 former occasions, for the government of similar de- 
 bates. He denied that the challenge to the proposed 
 discussion, had been given by him. At the close of 
 the discourse referred to by his opponent, he (Mr. 
 M'C.) had walked from the pulpit to the stove, but 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 15 
 
 saw very plainly that he was to have no chal- 
 lenge, so long as his old white hat was visible. He 
 then went out into the rain, when the challenge was 
 loudly given by his adversary. He then came back 
 and accepted it, and he was determined to give his 
 views to-morrow, whatever might be the result of 
 the present debate. He did not come here to boast, 
 but to defend the cause of his Divine Master. 
 
 Mr. Phimmer. I understand the gentleman 
 boasts that he has been twice triumphant in Ken- 
 tucky. I have, however, in my possession such 
 proofs as will establish a very different conclusion. 
 
 The gentleman denies that he gave a challenge at 
 the close of his three hours and a half speech. Here, 
 also, we have an abundance of proof As to this 
 great cause of his Divine jNIaster, let us get at it 
 without further delay. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. The very same suggestion was 
 made by Mr. Campbell ! 
 
 Mr. Plummer. The gentleman seems to think 
 "the Campbells are coming" — that "the Campbells 
 will be upon him." 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said, he was no bully, and came 
 not here on a gladiatorial expedition. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I have been accused of unfair- 
 ness. Was it unfair for me to give notice from this 
 desk that the gentleman was to preach in this house ? 
 Was it fair or unfair, for the gentleman to abuse us 
 in this house for three hours and a hah"? Was it 
 fair or unfair for him, here, in our own house, to pro- 
 scribe us as "Jesuits and God-denying heretics?" 
 Notice was given, I am told, in another church. 
 
16 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 that M'Calla was coming here to " smash Plummer 
 on his own ground." Was this fair or unfair ? I 
 say again, let us have Moderators, let them make 
 the rules, and let the discussion proceed. 
 
 Mr. M'Calla. I am perfectly willing to have 
 Moderators, and to allow them to draw up rules. But 
 I must have a word in the adoption of those rules. 
 I have a conscience to consult in this matter, and 
 would sooner die than consent to betray the cause 
 of my Master into the hands of his enemies. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. The gentleman says he has a 
 conscience — we have none ! that he has a Divine 
 Redeemer — we have none ! But we have too much 
 deHcacy to send any set of men to hell ! — By what 
 authority does he assume the right to send us there ? — 
 Would the gentleman willingly be called to order by 
 Moderators in whom he has not sufficient confidence 
 to allow them to make rules for our government ? 
 I would say to the gentleman that the Board of 
 Moderators should have power to control him, as 
 well as rules for the government of the discussion. 
 
 It is the book of God we are to refer to, and I 
 frankly say to you we are all liable to en\ If the 
 gentleman were to say, you are mistaken in mathe- 
 matics, and 3 times 1 make 1 and not 3, I would 
 hear him calmly, but endeaver to convince him of 
 his error. I wish to discuss no subject which we 
 cannot approach in a prayerful, candid and solemn 
 manner. 
 
 I have once before met a Presbyterian clergyman, 
 in discussion, and when we parted it was with a 
 shake of the hands, and with mutual good feeling. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 17 
 
 He may not have been in so many battles, nor be 
 able to show as many scars as my opponent, but in 
 talents and learning this clergyman was quite equal 
 to the gentleman, and in argument his superior. 
 
 If the gentleman and his friends are determined 
 to abuse and brov/-beat us, what if we should say 
 that they are God-denying heretics ? We have as 
 much proof as they to warrant the sweeping denun- 
 ciation. I have not, however, an unpleasant feeling 
 towards a Presbyterian. One of their best traits is 
 their readiness for discussion. If they must splits it 
 is only after a long debate. They are a learned and 
 pious body, and I never entertain any other feeUng 
 towards them than that of respect, so long as their 
 conduct corresponds with their professions. 
 
 I have been willing in this discussion to meet the 
 gentleman on a perfect level, and to leave him with- 
 out excuse ; therefore proposed to refer the settle- 
 ment of all preliminaries to the Moderators. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla. Well, whenever I am ready to go 
 on a regular fighting expedition, I may be willing to 
 do as my adversary here proposes. But as I have 
 more important business at present, I shall take the 
 liberty of giving my views to-morrow at the place 
 appointed for the discussion ; and if my opponent 
 will only come, and make such a soft speech there 
 as he has now, he need be imder no apprehension 
 from the absence of Moderators. He may bring 
 forward all his arguments, and I will endeavor to 
 answer them. Nor do I desue to deprive him of 
 the same privilege which I ask for myself. 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 Mr. Flummer, This is not the first time the 
 gentleman has given a challenge and then drawn 
 back. Does he want the opportimity again to send 
 this congregation m a body to hell, without a Board 
 of Moderators to keep him in check ? Would it be 
 right to allow him to get up and without restramt 
 denomice us as God-denymg heretics in a Presby- 
 terian meeting-house ? There are many Presbyterian 
 mmisters who rank high for respectability, to whom 
 the gentleman would be as unwilling to do justice as 
 to us. If he would take the stand with a smcere 
 desire to convict and convert us, it would give us 
 great pleasure to hear him. We wish to know what 
 Jesus Clirist requires of us. It is not our object to 
 gain a victory. In this enlightened age it behooves 
 us to approach the subject and discuss it in a proper 
 manner. Therefore I desire the appointment of Mo- 
 derators, and rules for the government of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla. If there is no other mode of get- 
 ting at the question, suppose we give you the right 
 to speak three hours and a half to-morrow, as an 
 offset to my speech here, about which so much com- 
 plaint has been heard. 
 
 Mr. Phimmer. I will meet you as proposed, 
 and give you a speech of three hours and a half; 
 but I must then, if I choose, be permitted to run. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla. And I will occupy the balance of 
 the time. 
 
 Mr. Plummer, Agreed —and give all the " hot 
 shot.'' 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 19 
 
 [Some farther conversation of a desultory charac- 
 ter ensued, durmg which Mr. M'Calla stated his 
 understanding of the arrangement to be, that the 
 discussion was to commence on the following morn- 
 ing, and be continued by alternate speeches of three 
 hours and a half, until the parties should be satisfied. 
 Mr. Plummer objected to any such construction, and 
 the meeting adjourned at half past seven, P. M., to 
 meet the next day, at ten, A. M., in the Presbyterian 
 church, at Ridley.] 
 
20 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Tuesday, January 18, 1842. 
 
 The parties and their friends, pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, met at 10, A. M., in the Presbyterian church in 
 Ridley, Delaware county. The house was crowded 
 at an early hour by a very intelligent auditory, as- 
 sembled from all parts of the county, among whom 
 were several clergymen of diiferent denominations. 
 Mr. Plummer took the pulpit, with a view to give his 
 address of three hours and a half. 
 
 Samuel M. Leiper, Esq. stated that the audience 
 had been called together for the pm-pose of hearing 
 a discussion between Mr. M'Calla and Mr. Plummer 
 on the doctrme of the Trinity, and he hoped the dis- 
 cussion would be conducted m an orderly manner. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla then read sundry rules prepared by 
 him, similar to those submitted on the previous even- 
 ing, except as to the time to be occupied in speaking. 
 He said that Moderators had been insisted upon by 
 Mr. Plurumer, during the debate of the last evening, 
 and he was now prepared so far to meet him on his 
 own gromid. He should now also insist on rules 
 and a Board of Moderators. 
 
 Mr. Plummer stated his views as to the arrange- 
 ment of the previous evening. But he was still wil- 
 ling to have a Board of Moderators. — He was pre- 
 pared to go on with his speech of three hours and a 
 half, while the Moderators were preparing the Rules, 
 and should then be willing to meet the gentleman as 
 originally proposed. But he should still insist on the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 21 
 
 right of the Moderators to close the discussion, or fix 
 some definite period for its termination. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla said this was again bringing up a 
 subject of debate which was fully discussed and 
 settled last evening. He had told many that Plum- 
 mer would not this morning comply with his agree- 
 ment. Wlien he proposed that Mr. Plummer should 
 open this morning with a speech of three hours and 
 a half, it was with the understanding that the discus- 
 sion was to be continued until the parties were satis- 
 fied. He never could consent to waive his right to 
 reply to the arguments of his opponent. He was 
 ready to agree to every thing fair and equal. He 
 came here to defend the cause of his Divme Master 
 — give him fair play and it was all he desired. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. For me to occupy this pulpit for 
 three hours and a half this morning, was the gentle- 
 man's own proposal. I have come here at his own 
 invitation, and with the full understanding that at 
 the expiration of the time I was to " be allowed to 
 run." For the truth of this statement, I appeal to 
 the Reporter, whom the gentleman himself has de- 
 clared to be " one of the best in the United States." 
 The gentleman has occupied my desk for three hours 
 and a half, and I am now ready to occupy this the 
 same length of time, agreeably to his own proposal, 
 and balance accoimts. 
 
 Mr. M'' Calla was willing to meet his opponent 
 on the very ground for which he had so strenuously 
 contended. He (Mr. M'C.) had called on Mr. 
 Leiper the previous evening, and told him he would 
 not meet that man without rules and Moderators. 
 
22 PLUMMEK AND m'cALLA's 
 
 If Moderators were appointed, he was ready to go 
 on, — if they were not to he appointed, he should 
 dechne proceeding with the discussion. Nothing but 
 Moderators would do. 
 
 M)\ Plummer. I have acceded to the gentleman's 
 own proposal, as taken down by the Reporter at 
 ]Mr. Leiper's special request. I am willing the Re- 
 porter and Mr. Leiper should decide as to the truth 
 of my statement. — And I have made no objection to 
 a Board of Moderators. 
 
 Mr. S. Leiper said he would not, as one of the 
 trustees of the house, consent that any discussion 
 should go on without Moderators. 
 
 Hon. George G. Leiper said he had attended none 
 of the preliminary meetings, but as a pew-holder in 
 this chm*ch he was in favor of Moderators. For the 
 honor of his country — for the honor of religion — he 
 hoped this discussion would be conducted with de- 
 corum. He had intended himself to oflfer rules, but 
 would now suggest that each gentleman should 
 nominate one of a committee, these nominate a 
 third, and the three retire and report rules for the 
 approval of the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I am ready to accede to the pro- 
 position, after I have balanced accounts. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said he began to think he was not; 
 the man expected here. He must be permitted to 
 discuss the truth as he preaches it. He asked no ad- 
 vantage — nothing but fair play — ^liberty of speech — 
 the right of choosing his own argmnents, and the 
 number of those arguments. He referred to a copy 
 of rules adopted in his discussion with Mr. Lane, in 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 23 
 
 which it was agreed that the Moderators should keep 
 order but not decide the merits of the question nor 
 the length of the debate. He would not agree to be 
 restricted in liberty of speech nor conscience. Give 
 him such rules as he could approve — rules without 
 improper restrictions — and he should be willing to 
 defend the cause of his Master before even the British 
 Parliament or the Congress of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Plummer asked no rights which should inter- 
 fere with the right of speech or conscience. He 
 asked only what was afforded to him last evening. 
 When the gentleman gave the challenge, it was ac- 
 cepted by him on no other terms than that Modera- 
 tors should be appointed. Let them be appointed 
 now, and frame the rules for the government of the 
 discussion, and in the meantime he would address 
 the meeting as he had been invited to do. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper said that three hours had been 
 spent on the previous evening in the same kind of 
 debate. On behalf of the authorities of the church 
 he would now say, that Mr. M'Calla should be per- 
 mitted to open the discussion, and continue the same 
 for thirty minutes — that Mr. Plummer should then 
 have the right to speak for thirty minutes — and there- 
 after each party continue to occupy alternate half 
 hours until the authorities of the house should close 
 the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Will it be said now that our 
 rights have not been infringed ? 
 
 Sketchley Morton, Esq. I consider this a most 
 unjust and tyrannical procedure on the part of the 
 authorities of the house. I attended a previous 
 
24 
 
 meeting, and presumed that the miderstanding was, 
 at least with a majority of those who attended, that 
 the reason why we came to this house was because 
 it was more commodious and would accommodate 
 more people — ^not that the discussion should be un- 
 der the control of the authorities of this house. Such 
 a course would be arbitrary and tyrannical, and ex- 
 tremely unfair towards ^Ir. Plummer. It would be 
 one-sided and mijust, and I for one shall oppose such 
 a measure. If we are to have a discussion, let it be 
 conducted on fair principles — let both of the parties 
 choose Moderators, and then they will have an equal 
 chance. But for one party to assume the right to 
 dictate to the other, and deprive him of his rights, is 
 a high-handed measure, and I hope it will be frowned 
 down by this meeting. 
 
 M7\ M^Calla was willing Mr. Plummer should 
 begin first. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I am wiUing the proceedings of 
 last evening shall be read by the Reporter, and will 
 abide the decision of this respectable assembly. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper said the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman was not in order. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. I am willing to leave it to this 
 audience to say which of us is out of order. That 
 gentleman has placed himself in an attitude not very 
 commendable. I am not an intruder in this house. 
 I have been invited here, and provoked to this dis- 
 cussion. This respectable audience know their rights, 
 and I trust they will not see mine trampled upon. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper. Mr. M^Calla will read the 
 rules. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 25 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. I want nothing but right. 
 
 Mr, Plummer. The authorities of this house are 
 not my controllers. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper. Mr. M'Calla will now pro- 
 ceed for thirty minutes, when Mr. Plummer — 
 
 Mr. Scholefield. Mr. M'Calla appears to be 
 very eager now to proceed. When — 
 
 Mr. M'Calla. Has that man a right to speak 
 here ? I know him of old. He — 
 
 Mr. Scholefield. Yes, I have a right to speak 
 here, if liberty of speech is to be preserved in a free 
 country. I, too, know that gentleman well. I said 
 last evening that this would be the result. [Great 
 confusion.] 
 
 Mr. Charles H. Plummer requested that the 
 agreement entered into by the parties last evening, 
 might be read by the Reporter. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper. We do not wish to hear it. 
 [Excitement.] 
 
 Mr. Plummer wished it to be understood that 
 nothing could be accomplished last evening. He 
 was now willing to proceed mitil they should — 
 
 [Here a motion was made that Hon. George G. 
 Leiper take the chair. (Carried.) The Reporter was 
 also appointed Secretary of the meeting.] 
 
 Rev. Mr. Cooper, (Methodist,) said it was very 
 desirable that the rules should be agreeable to the 
 parties immediately concerned. WTiere they are 
 imable to agree, let the meeting or the Moderators 
 decide. He moved that each of the gentlemen 
 choose two Moderators, and that the four choose a 
 3 
 
26 PLtJMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 fifth, who should be considered the President of the 
 Board. [Adopted.] 
 
 Mr. Flummer related an anecdote. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla was ready to resign, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Mr. Cooper. It has been announced by the au- 
 thorities of the house, that Moderators are to be ap- 
 pointed, and if either of the parties now leave, the 
 discussion ends ; but the party so leaving will be con- 
 sidered by this meeting as having surrendered the 
 field to his opponent. 
 
 Mr. Scholefield and Mr. Sketchley Morton, were 
 nominated as Moderators by Mr. Plummer. 
 
 Hon. George G. Leiper and Rev. Mr. Hall, were 
 nominated by Mr. S. M. Leiper, as Moderators on 
 the part of Mr. M'Calla. 
 
 A motion was made and carried, that the Modera- 
 tors appointed do now retire to choose a fifth and 
 prepare the rules for the government of the discussion. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper moved that any rules in the 
 possession of Mr. M^Calla or Mr. Plummer, should 
 be placed in the hands of the Moderators. [Carried.] 
 
 A verbal resolution was offered by Mr. Cooper, 
 instructing the Moderators to report forthwith, which 
 after amendment was stated by the chair to be as 
 follows : — 
 
 Resolved, That definite instructions be given to the 
 Moderators to report rules forthwith, to be binding 
 without the consent of either party. 
 
 Adjourned for half an hour. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 27 
 
 Tuesday, § past 11, A. M. 
 
 Mr. Morton, of the Board of Moderators, reported 
 that they had selected Mr. Wm. Eves as President 
 of the Board, and had agreed upon the following 
 rules, to wit : — 
 
 RULES OF CONFERENCE, 
 
 Adopted by the Board of Moderators, to be signed 
 by Frederick Plummer and Wm. L. M'Calla. 
 
 1. The proposition for discussion shall be as fol- 
 lows, viz : — "/^ there a plurality of persons in the 
 Divine Essence .?'' 
 
 2. The parties shall be entitled to alternate ad- 
 dresses of thirty minutes in length, with this restric- 
 tion, that the time consumed in settling questions 
 of order, shall be deducted from the speaking time 
 of the party who shall be in the wrong. 
 
 3. This discussion shall not continue longer than 
 next Friday, at 12 o'clock, M. 
 
 4. It shall commence this day at 12 o'clock, and 
 shall continue one hour, each speaking thirty minutes, 
 and then there shall be a recess of one hour — the 
 discussion to be resumed at 2 o'clock, and con- 
 tinued until 4 o'clock. 
 
 5. Thereafter, the discussion shall commence at 
 10 o'clock, A. M., and continue until 12 o'clock — 
 
28 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 then a recess of one hour — ^then commence at one 
 o'clock and continue until three o'clock, P. M. And 
 so on until adjournment. 
 
 Signed this 18th day of January, 1842, on behalf 
 of the Board. 
 
 WM. EVES. 
 Agreed to by 
 
 Frederick Plummer. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said that with perfect respect to 
 the Moderators he would make some observations. 
 What was now requested of him was, that he should 
 give the power to the Moderators to close or control 
 the discussion in just such a manner as they shall 
 think proper. Mr. Plummer had agreed to give 
 them this power, and it was expected that he should 
 do so likewise. This was virtually saying that any 
 thing the Moderators agreed to must be binding on 
 him — whatever they suggested, he must agree to. 
 He never did and never would place his conscience 
 in the keeping of any body of men. For liberty of 
 speech and conscience his fathers on the other side of 
 the Atlantic died at the stake and imder the gallows. 
 It was designed by these rules to give to the Mode- 
 rators the power of the Pope. He would make no 
 man his Pope. Suppose the Moderators had pro- 
 posed for discussion the Three Persons in the Trinity 
 — (and such a suggestion had been made) — would 
 he therefore be bound to comply ? He believed the 
 rules had been framed with impartiality, so far as 
 
 If 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 29 
 
 the Moderators were enlightened. But he would 
 sooner suffer death on the gallows or block than 
 accede to them. He never would consent either to 
 limit the time or waive the right of replymg to the 
 arguments of his opponent. If permitted to go on, 
 the discussion, he presumed, would not have ex 
 tended to Fri'day. He should probably have stopped, 
 himself. All he wished was time to finish his ar- 
 guments. It was impossible to say how much time 
 might be wasted in the settlement of trifling questions 
 of order. It was, indeed, provided that the time so 
 consumed, should be deducted from the speaking 
 time of the party who should be in the wrong. So 
 polished a gentleman as Mr. Plummer would not 
 interrupt him, of course, but he might take up his 
 time in discussing points of order. He had never 
 discussed a subject in his life without being accused 
 of wandering from the point. He wished to feel 
 secure that he should be allowed to occupy his half 
 hour mimolested. Suppose Mr. Plummer to be the 
 conscientious and polished gentleman which every 
 one knows him to be, and I the ruffian he believes 
 me — he might not interrupt me, but I will not put 
 myself in the power of my opponent. I came here 
 to advocate my Master's cause, and not to put my- 
 self at the mercy of any antagonist. Leave me my 
 half hour, and the right to close in my own manner, 
 and I am your man. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hall, (Baptist) said, the Moderators con- 
 ceived they had the right to call to order, and no one 
 else. If either were called to order, the point would 
 3* 
 
so PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 be decided by the Board. If interruptions occurred, 
 the time so occupied would be deducted from the 
 speaking time of the party declared to be in the 
 wrong. Friday at 12 o'clock was fixed upon for 
 closing the debate, because two of the Moderators 
 would be compelled to leave at that tune. They did 
 not wish to legislate for those who might be ap- 
 pointed in their stead. He was a Baptist, and con- 
 sequently a Trinitarian. He agrees with Mr. M'Calla 
 on the question proposed for discussion, but should 
 be compelled to leave on Friday. 
 
 Mr. Phimmer. I am at a loss to discover how 
 fixing a time to close the discussion is to cut ofi" the 
 gentleman's arguments. If three or four days are not 
 long enough, let us add to the time afterwards. If 
 there should be a prospect of a great increase of con- 
 verts, let us continue. If this Board break, let an- 
 other be appointed. With regard to conscience, no 
 man has a right to suppose his conscience is to ex- 
 pand over other men's consciences. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Helme, (Presbyterian,) proposed that the 
 rules should be so modified as to read that the Board 
 will sit imtil Friday, and then appoint others to sup- 
 ply any vacancies which may occur. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla. I know very well why thmgs have 
 taken this course. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, 
 Baptists, Methodists, all think they understand these 
 things better than the old soldier who has been fight- 
 ing his Master's battles all his days. They whisper 
 in his ear — " You must not let this man out of your 
 clutches!" If that man is to be defeated, the glory 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 31 
 
 will be due to Almighty influence alone. If I were 
 in argument a Paul or an Apollos, I would not give 
 up an honest opinion in order to meet that man. 
 
 Mr. Cooper thought Mr. M'Calla did not correctly 
 understand the deducting of time. He seemed to 
 be under the impression that his half hour might be 
 taken away by interruptions. The explanation is, 
 that the time shall be deducted and the disputant 
 have his full half hour, unless the Board shall decide 
 against him. No human being can tell when these 
 interruptions may occur. One may have to stop be- 
 fore the close of half his speech. He understood 
 Mr. M'Calla to say that he withdrew his name — that 
 he could not on his conscience, submit to the arbi- 
 trary dictation of Moderators, when his Master's 
 cause was concerned. All were bound to respect 
 his scrupulousness; and he would therefore move to 
 amend the rules by strikmg out that clause which re- 
 stricts the discussion to Friday at 12 o'clock, and in- 
 serting that the Board shall then be permitted to 
 resign, but the parties shall be heard until they are 
 satisfied. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Mason (Presbyterian) hoped the pro- 
 posed amendment would be adopted. He should be 
 greatly disappointed if this large meeting were to 
 break up without being gratified with the discussion 
 anticipated. He entertained equal respect for both 
 gentlemen. A victory would doubtless be pleasing 
 to either party, but in reality was not worth a straw. 
 But if the great principles of Christianity were to be 
 advanced, the time occupied in the discussion would 
 not be spent in vain. 
 
32 PLUMMER AND m'gALLA's 
 
 Mr. Plummer referred to the proceedings of the 
 last evenmg, and the invitation given, for him to oc- 
 cupy this house for three houi's and a half this morn- 
 ing. He came here in consequence of that invita- 
 tion, but was deprived of his rights. An appeal was 
 made to the respectable assembly present, and a 
 Board of Moderators appointed to prepare rules for 
 the government of the discussion. That Board had 
 reported, and the report had been acceded to by him. 
 And now Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and 
 Methodists had been invoked to hear him denounced 
 as one who has no conscience — no Redeemer. But 
 the gentleman's conscience must be respected. His 
 conscience, and not the Board of Moderators, must 
 decide — his conscience must say when he is to di'aw 
 to a close. What is the object of all this, if advan- 
 tage is not to be taken ? Does that gentleman wish 
 to harangue this assembly without control, and 
 denounce me as a fiend of hell ? Or does he think 
 to weary me out by continuing an unnecessary dis- 
 cussion, after all his arguments are exhausted? I 
 ask, as my right, that the rules, as reported, may be 
 enforced. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. All that I said was that conscience 
 must regulate me, and not the debate. I must be 
 regulated by conscience, and have therefore with- 
 drawn my name. 
 
 Mr. Mason was prepared to move that if this dis- 
 cussion did not go on, Mr. Plummer should have the 
 house. 
 
 Mr Schohfield had a very few words to say. As 
 one of those selected to draw up rules, he distinctly 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 33 
 
 understood that they were empowered to prepare 
 rules which should be final, without the action of 
 the meeting. These rules had been unanimously- 
 agreed upon by the Board. It now appeared that 
 though the Board had acted strictly according to 
 their mstructions, Mr, M'Calla should have been 
 consulted ! — they should be governed by his dictum ! 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla. What, after I have abdicated, like 
 Napoleon ? 
 
 Mr. Phimmer said that when parties met in the 
 spirit of the Gospel, they should be willing to give 
 and take a little-. He was most desirous that tliis 
 discussion should go on. If his knowledge of the 
 sacred book was erroneous, he wanted information. 
 When convinced that he was wrong, he should bow 
 with submission. 
 
 Mr. Helme hoped then, that with these views he 
 would consent that the Moderators should modify 
 the rule, as proposed. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. It was not the gentleman's con- 
 science nor his own which should be consulted in 
 fixing upon a definite time for closing the discussion, 
 but the wishes of this respectable assembly. He 
 wished that they should be satisfied. Besides, how 
 was the Reporter to report this discussion, if it has 
 no end? 
 
 Mr. Scholefidd was pleased with the remark of 
 Mr. Helme, but could not consent to dictation from 
 any one. He did not boast of his conscience, but 
 had his ideas of right and wrong. He should there- 
 fore withdraw from the Board. 
 
 Mr. Hall could not discover the bone of con- 
 
34 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA^S 
 
 tention. Feared that a party feeling would be got 
 up, which might lead to disgraceful consequences. 
 Came here with a feeling of impartiality, and had 
 endeavored so to act as a member of the Board of 
 Moderators. Should have been willing to adopt the 
 rule proposed by Mr. M'Calla, but others of the 
 Board had a different view from him. The rule had 
 first been written according to the original copy, and 
 had it been supposed that Mr. M'Calla would have 
 objected to it in its present shape, the Board would 
 probably have adopted it as written. Mr. Plummer, 
 he believed, had not objected to a modification. 
 
 Mr. Plummer said, he had insisted, previous to 
 the adoption of the rules, that the discussion should 
 be limited to a definite period. 
 
 Mr. Hall Then, if we stay here until the 18th 
 of Jmie, we shall not get nearer to the matter, so 
 long as one insists on a limit to the discussion, and 
 the other, that it shall be unlimited. He, therefore, 
 tendered his resignation. 
 
 [The Secretary of the meeting was here requested 
 by the Chair, at the suggestion of several persons, to 
 read the resolution by which the Board of Mode- 
 rators had been instructed to report rules ; and the 
 resolution was accordingly read.] 
 
 Mr. M' Calla said, he had been asked to give up 
 the right to continue the discussion after Friday next. 
 His conscience told him this would be doing his 
 Master injustice. He gave up a great deal when he 
 agreed that Mr. Plummer should occupy that desk 
 for three hours and a half, and he did so only because 
 he was to have the right to go on in reply. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 35 
 
 Mr, Cooper said, (in reference to the resolution 
 read by the Secretary) that the meeting could now 
 see precisely where they were. He had made the 
 motion giving the Moderators the power to report 
 rules, but the resolution had not been reported in the 
 language in which it was offered. He thought the 
 meeting had the power to recommit the rules with 
 instructions to amend. No man should be asked to 
 lay down his conscience. He denied any participa- 
 tion or influence in originating the discussion. 
 
 The Reporter said that he had not intended to 
 take any part whatever in this discussion. But as 
 the accuracy of his report had been called in question 
 by the last speaker, he felt it his duty to say, that he 
 came here to act with perfect impartiality towards 
 all concerned. The resolution was correctly reported, 
 and to sustain him in this assertion he appealed to 
 the Chair. 
 
 The Chair said the resolution proposed by Mr. 
 Cooper had been amended at the suggestion of Mr. 
 Mason and he believed some other gentleman, and 
 its substance stated from the Chair. Mr. Cooper had 
 not reduced his resolution to writing, and this was 
 probably the cause of the misapprehension. 
 
 Mr. Cooper did not intend to call m question the 
 integrity of the Reporter. He had no doubt he gave 
 the resolution as he imderstood it. The fault was 
 with himself in not reducing his motion to writing. 
 
 Mr, Plummer, The principal object should be 
 to get to business without further delay. I think 
 twenty -four speeches quite sufficient. Could not all 
 the arguments be adduced in three days ? 
 
36 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 M7\ Scholejield. When the Moderators were ap- 
 pointed, they were instructed to report rules for the 
 house. But as I did not receive my appointment 
 from this congregation, but from one of the parties 
 in the proposed discussion, I am therefore opposed 
 to the submission of our report to an authority 
 which I do not acknowledge. I deny all right of 
 dictation from such a quarter. JNIr. M'Calla talks 
 much of his readiness to "y/e/c?*' all that is fair. He 
 wants nothing but what is fair ! I should like to 
 know what that party yields, who refuses to relin- 
 quish one single point ? Why, he has even boasted 
 that he never does give up any thing in the cause of 
 his Master. The plain English of the matter is, that 
 he intends to weary out his opponent by objecting 
 to all arrangements, but such as are manifestly in his 
 own favor. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla. Can the gentleman be found to 
 whom these remarks refer ? — I do not know to whom 
 they are applicable. 
 
 Mr. Scholejield. That is very possible, for I really 
 believe the gentleman does not kiiow himself. 
 
 Mr. Mason said that Mr. M'Calla should then be 
 declared out of the pale of the chiu:ch. 
 
 The Chair explained the rule of re-commitment, 
 as existing in the House of Representatives of the 
 United States, and gave it as his opinion that the 
 meeting might recommit the report to the Board of 
 Moderators, with instructions to amend. 
 
 Mr. Scholejield said the case referred to by the 
 Chair was not analogous. In one case the report 
 was made to the house for their subsequent action — 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE OX THE TRINITY. 37 
 
 in the other the action of the Moderators was to be 
 final, as this power had been given them at the time 
 of then appointment. 
 
 3Ir. Mason thought tliat some misunderstanding 
 existed in relation to this matter, and that Mr. Coo- 
 per should be allowed to explam. He thought it 
 proper that the report should be submitted to the 
 meeting. 
 
 Mr. Cooper made some explanations, and stated 
 his views of the question. 
 
 Mr. Scholefield again spoke to the pomt of order. 
 
 Mr. Pluvimer wished the house to understand 
 that he had not and should not consent to give his 
 opponent the right to say when this discussion was 
 to close. He thought that should be decided by the 
 house or the Moderators. 
 
 [Here the question of recommitment was sub- 
 mitted to the meeting by the Chair, and declared to 
 be decided in the affirmative.] 
 
 Mr. Plumnier supposed that as it had been so 
 decided, he also had now a right to fall back on his 
 conscience. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla wished that the report, so far as re- 
 lated to the deducting of time, might be put in such 
 plain language that it could not be mismiderstood. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. The gentleman understands very 
 well how to get things to suit his conscience. I have 
 no doubt the Moderators will act conscientiously. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla could not adopt the motto on a sign 
 in Philadelphia — "my country right or wrong." 
 
 Mr. Plummer thought, as the question would 
 now be settled as to the deducting of time, the meet- 
 
 4 
 
38 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 ing had better adjom-n for an hour, to give the audi- 
 ence time to get their dinners. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla. yes, we had better have dinner, 
 and then we can discuss the point for the rest of the 
 day — it is so very amusing ! 
 
 Mr. Plummer had a conscience in relation to this 
 matter. 
 
 Adjourned to meet at 2 P. M. 
 
 Tuesday, 2 P. M. 
 
 Met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Hall, on be- 
 half of the Board of Moderators, reported that they 
 had agreed to adopt the rules as before reported, 
 except the third, which had been amended so as to 
 read as follows : — 
 
 " 3. The present Board of Moderators shall be 
 permitted to resign on Friday next, at 12 o'clock, M., 
 if they please so to do, but the parties shall be heard 
 until they are satisfied." 
 
 Mr. ilf ' Calla here read a rule signed by Mr. Camp- 
 bell, in his discussion with that gentleman on Bap- 
 tism, to the effect that each disputant should have 
 the privilege of speaking thirty minutes without in- 
 terruption, unless he chose to waive his right, 
 
 Mr. Plummer said, he had acceded to the 
 re-commitment, though the course taken by the 
 meeting was contrary to his views of right and 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 39 
 
 wrong. But the gentleman was evidently determined 
 to avoid the discussion. 
 
 Mr. M' Calla thought the language of the rules^ 
 in relation to the deducting of time, might lead to 
 misunderstanding in the course of the discussion. 
 He was desirous to be seciu-ed in the possession of 
 his half hour, without interruption. 
 
 M)\ Plummer. Go on, then. I am here under 
 the control of those who can turn me out, if I be- 
 come disorderly. 
 
 Chairman. This is all out of order, gentlemen. 
 As far as I have the ability, I shall do my duty here, 
 without fear or favor. I hope the resolutions will 
 now be unanimously adopted. 
 
 [The question was then submitted to the meeting, 
 the rules declared to be adopted, and the Chairman 
 stated that there was no further business before the 
 meeting. 
 
 Mr. Hall consented to retain his seat as a member 
 of the Board of Moderators, and Mr. Scholefield 
 also, at the unanimous request of the Board, con- 
 sented to remain.] 
 
 Mr. Plummer. In the present shape of the rules, 
 it is impossible to say when the discussion will ter- 
 minate. I am still desirous that some definite time 
 should be fixed, for closing the debate. 
 
 Mr. Mason. If the gentlemen will only go on, 
 the good sense of the audience will suggest to them 
 when the debate ought to close. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. When is it to terminate ? will be 
 asked — and I have no idea of taxing the patience 
 of this respectable — 
 
40 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Mr. jSrCalla. Aha! 
 
 Mr, Plummer. ^^ Aha !" the gentleman says — but 
 I have a conscience m this matter. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla related the anecdote of the man 
 with the spring leg. He was walking and walkmg 
 to this day, and his opponent seemed to fear that this 
 discussion also would keep going on. 
 
 Mr. Plummer said if he were now to agree to go 
 on with the discussion he had no doubt the gentle- 
 man would again fall back on his conscience. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. A\Tienever I make a promise, I 
 consider it inviolable. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. You have nevertheless violated 
 the agreement of last evening. 
 
 Mr, M^Calla said the agreement of last evening, 
 as he miderstood it, was that the discussion was to 
 commence this mornmg with a speech of three hours 
 and a half from his opponent, and be continued by 
 alternate speeches of three hours and a half from 
 each party, until both were satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Plummer again appealed to the Reporter. 
 
 The Reporter said it was with great reluctance 
 that he took any part whatever in this debate. He 
 came here to report the discussion impartially, and 
 though in sentiment a Trinitarian, was perfectly in- 
 difTerent, as to the result. He had, however, been 
 so repeatedly called upon m relation to the proceed- 
 ings of the previous evening, that courtesy required 
 him to make some reply. The remarks of Mr. 
 M'Calla were substantially, that if there was no 
 other way to get at the subject, Mr. Plummer might 
 occupy this pulpit three hours and a half this morn- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 41 
 
 ing, as an offset to liis discourse about which 
 there had been so much complaint — to which Mr. 
 Phimmer agreed, remarking that at the close of his 
 speech "he must, if he chose, be permitted to run." 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. Oh, that is a very different thing. 
 
 Mr. Phimmer said he had been advised by a re- 
 spectable Presbyterian gentleman to have the time 
 fixed — to give the power to some one to close the 
 discussion — as INPCalla was determined to weaiy 
 him out, if he could not defeat him by argument. 
 To the Board of Moderators properly belonged that 
 power, and both parties should obey the voice of the 
 Board in this matter. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla. I never promised to obey — my 
 opponent has. The course he is now pursuing is the 
 very thing I expected. He has determined from the 
 beginning not to go on, even if he has the privilege 
 of commencing every morning and closing every 
 afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. We will try to meet him never- 
 theless, until Friday noon. 
 
 The Chairman. Let the rules be signed, and the 
 discussion go on. 
 
 Adjourned, for the Moderators to take their seats. 
 
THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 QuESTiox. — Is there a plurality of persons in the 
 Divine Essence? 
 
 Tuesday, Jan. IS, 1S42, 
 i past 2, P. M. 
 
 IMR. M'CALLA. 
 
 I will commence this discussion with a few words 
 of explanation. By " a plm-ality of persons in the 
 divine essence/^ we are not to imderstand a plu- 
 rality of beings m one person. To say that three 
 beings are one being, or three persons one person, 
 would be an arithmetical absurdity ; and yet I shall 
 be able to show that this is my opponent's doctrine. 
 I once knew a man to be confined m a mad-house 
 for saying once one is two, and yet my opponent's 
 doctrine is equally absurd. 
 
 iSIan has a material being and an immaterial be- 
 ing. From the Scriptures we learn, that one of these 
 can be in the earth, while the other is in heaven or 
 hell. Divine inspiration also teaches us, that man, 
 in his natural state, is depraved, ignorant, helpless 
 
 (43) 
 
44 
 
 and guilty ; and that to save him from tiie effects 
 of divine justice, the interposition of a Redeemer is 
 necessary. 
 
 The doctrine of a Redeemer possessed of supreme 
 and eternal divinity, has always been held by the 
 Christian Church. " How can they be saved, (Ire- 
 naeus says) unless they who wrought their salvation 
 upon earth, be God?'^ The early church declared 
 Theodotus, who denied the divinity of Christ, to 
 be thus guilty of the " God-denying heresy." This 
 heresy has always had a stronger affinity to any other 
 religion on earth, whether Jewish, Mohammedan, or 
 Pagan, than to the Christian religion. In evidence 
 of this, I need hardly go farther than to a book 
 written by Mr. Kinkade, a leader of my opponent's 
 society — a book which has been printed, circulated, 
 and recommended, as " Bible Doctrine." Whatever 
 this book says, therefore, should be considered as 
 expressing the sentiments of these Unitarians, or 
 ''Christians'^ as they denominate themselves. This 
 book claims the Anti-Trinitarian Jews as vv^itnesses 
 against the Christian Trinitarians. The declaration 
 of Mr. Kinkade is, that the latter " have never been 
 able to produce one book written by a Jew in favor 
 of the Trinity." These Jews, it will be recollected, 
 were the people who denied the Messiaship of 
 Jesus, blasphemed his name, and crucified him as a 
 malefactor. 
 
 Dr. Priestly may be considered as the Father of my 
 opponent's doctrine in this country; and yet he 
 openly opposed the worship of Christ as a '' modern 
 Christian idolatry.'^ "Upon the very same prin- 
 
PUBLIC DKBATE ON THE TRINITY. 45 
 
 ciples and in the very same manner (he says) by 
 which dead men came to be worshipped by the 
 ancient idolaters, there were introduced into the 
 Christian Chm-ch, in the first place, the idolatrous 
 ivorship of Jesus Christ, then of the Virgin IVIary, 
 and lastly, that of innumerable other saints and an- 
 gels also.'^ 
 
 Dr. Miller, in a sermon delivered in Baltimore, at 
 the ordination of Rev. Wm. Nevins, says : " In great 
 cities, likewise, or at least in states of society similar 
 to what is commonly found in such places, has 
 generally commenced that fatal decline from ortho- 
 doxy, which began, perhaps, with calling in question 
 what are styled the more rigid peculiarities of re- 
 ceived creeds, and ended in embracing the dreadful 
 soul-destroying errors of Arius and Socinius. This 
 language has not been adopted lightly, but is the 
 result of serious deliberation and deep conviction. 
 And in conformity with this view of the subject, the 
 author cannot forbear to notice and record, a decla- 
 ration made to himself by the late Dr. Priestly, two 
 or three years before the decease of that distinguished 
 Unitarian. The conversation was a free and ami- 
 cable one, on some of the fundamental doctrines of 
 reUgion. In reply to a direct avowal on the part of 
 the author, that he was a Trinitarian and a Calvinist, 
 Dr. Priestly said — ^ I do not wonder that you Cal- 
 vinists entertain and express a strongly unfavorable 
 opinion of us Unitarians. The truth is, there neither 
 can nor ought to be any compromise between us. 
 If you are right, we are not Christians at all ; and if 
 we are right, you are gross idolaters.' These were, 
 
46 PLUMMER AND m'c ALLANS 
 
 as nearly as can be recollected, the words, and most 
 accurately, the substance of his remarks. And no- 
 thing certainly can be more just. Between those 
 who believe in the divinity and atonement of the 
 Son of God, and those who entirely reject both, ^ there 
 is a great gulf fixed,' which precludes all ecclesiastical 
 intercourse. The former may greatly respect and 
 love the latter, on account of other qualities and 
 attainments; but certainly cannot regard them as 
 Christians, in any sense of the word ; or as any more 
 in the way of salvation, than Mohammedans or 
 Jews." 
 
 In this Dr. Priestly and Dr. Miller agreed. The 
 affinity of Unitarians to Mohammedans is firmly es- 
 tablished by their " Epistle Dedicatory to his illus- 
 trious Excellency Ameth Ben Ameth, Ambassador 
 of the Mighty Emperor of Fez and Morocco, to 
 Charles II. King of Great Britain." In this epistle 
 they call the Trinitarians "idolizing Christians." 
 But they consider the "pens" of the English Anti- 
 Trinitarians, and "the sword" of Mohammed, as en- 
 listed in a common cause against these "idolizing 
 Christians." They therefore claim the honor of 
 being the " nearest fellow champions" of their Mo- 
 hammedan brethren ; and therefore " heartily salute 
 and congratulate his Excellency, and all who were 
 with him, as votaries and fellow-worshippers of that 
 sole supreme Deity of the Almighty Father and 
 Creator." The God which they here call "Fa- 
 ther" is the very one which is worshipped by Mr. 
 Kinkade and my opponent; and in such a way 
 as to show that they are "fellow-worshippers" with 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 47 
 
 the Pagans also, in opposition to real Christians. 
 Jupiter, the supreme God of the Pagans, was ori- 
 ginally called Jovis Pater — Jove the Father. The 
 name Jove was derived from Jehovah, the Hebrew 
 name of the God of Trinitarian Christians. Now, 
 though the Unitarians may find no consistent ob- 
 jection to the name of Jove the Father, the primitive 
 Christians, we are informed by Origen, suffered mar- 
 tyrdom rather than give this name to their God. 
 Let me, too, have my portion among the followers 
 of Jesus, and not among those who fight with "pens'' 
 as the champions of Pagans and Mohammedans." 
 
 Mr. Pierpont, of Boston, wrote a beautiful little 
 poem. It was so very sweet that it got admitted into 
 the "Presbyterian" of Philadelphia, and would have 
 passed without comment, but for the squeamishness 
 of a cynical correspondent, who observed as a fault 
 in it, that it professed that the Mohammedans, wor- 
 shipping in their mosques, were accepted of God, 
 though they did deny Him of Nazareth. I there- 
 fore, by no means, object to have it said that I con- 
 sider the doctrine as fundamental. 
 
 My opponent's brother, Mr. Kinkade, at page 50 
 of his "Bible Doctrine," has a very affectionate ad- 
 dress to Trinitarians, the object of which is to con- 
 vince them that they should "become rational be- 
 ings," and no longer " reject the fellowship of these 
 pious " Unitarians. It commences : — 
 
 ^^ Dear Brethren: — If by the phrase, tJiree pei'- 
 sons in the Godhead, you do not mean three beings, 
 three offices, three attributes, three modes of exist- 
 ence, nor any other three such things, what do you 
 
48 
 
 mean ? If you can give no definition of the terms 
 by which you express your faith, you do not know 
 what you express when you use those terms. If 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is an inexphcable mystery 
 that you cannot possibly understand, and if you can- 
 not explain the terms by which you attempt to ex- 
 press it, then you neither know what you speak, nor 
 whereof you affirm. Now in the name of common 
 sense, I ask why do you make those expressions 
 which you acknowledge are unintelligible to your- 
 selves, essential articles of religion, when, at the 
 same time, you know they are not in the Bible ? 
 And in the name of Christian charity, I ask why do 
 you reject from your fellowship pious Christians, 
 Avhose morals are irreproachable, and stigmatize 
 them as infidels and enemies of the cross, merely 
 because their minds are not capable of receiving a 
 doctrme, that you say is mcomprehensible to your 
 own minds, or because they refuse to express their 
 faith in certain unscriptural terms, the meaning of 
 which you confess you do not understand your- 
 selves ? And in the presence of Jesus Christ, before 
 whose judgment seat we must all stand, I ask when 
 did he authorize any set of men to go into all the 
 world, and teach all nations that if they did not be- 
 lieve in a Trinity of three self-existent, coequal, co- 
 essential, coeternal persons, each one of whom is 
 God in the highest sense of the word, that they 
 should all be damned ? 
 
 " Now, bretln-en, as I propose these questions in 
 love, I hope you will attend to them with candor, and 
 investigate the subject with that diligence and ho- 
 nesty, which become rational beings inquiring into 
 the things that belong to their eternal state. As 
 error never can profit us, we should in all our reli- 
 gious inquiries make truth our aim, and the Bible 
 our guide. May God, by his Holy Spirit, guide us 
 into all truth." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 49 
 
 Here Mr. Kinkade recognises Jesus Christ as our 
 final judge, and the Holy Spirit as our guide into 
 all truth, and both as objects of Divine worship. 
 Can a Christian, taught of God according to his 
 word, worship as a judge of angels and men, a per- 
 son who is not omnipresent, omnipotent, indepen- 
 dent, and in fact, a divine person? And can he 
 pray to any but a divine person, as an mfallible 
 guide to heaven? Real Christians give that wor- 
 ship to Christ which is due to the Supreme and Eter- 
 nal God. These counterfeit Christians worship him 
 as a created being — " the first being that God cre- 
 ated.'' With such sentiments, they are the more 
 guilty for assuming this adorable name. 
 
 They say, " We love pious Christians whose mo- 
 rals are irreproachable !" We cannot extend our 
 charity to them. We dare not fraternize with infi- 
 dels — the enemies of our Divine Redeemer. 
 
 If we are to beheve theu own declarations, there 
 is not one expression in this book that is not mi- 
 scriptural — for they demand express authority for 
 every thing. I shall be able to show, in the course 
 of the discussion, that this express authority is much 
 wanting on their part. 
 
 They tell you that the doctrine of the Trinity can- 
 not be understood — that it is unintelligible, incom- 
 prehensible. These Pagan Christians will not admit 
 that religion has any mystery; yet the Scriptures 
 declare, that "Great is the mystery of Godliness, 
 God manifest in the flesh." The alphabet is a mys- 
 tery to the untutored child — but it is not unintelligi- 
 ble to those who have learnt it. 
 5 
 
50 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen Moderators, 
 
 I feel it due to this large and respectable as- 
 sembly, to make an apology, as my opponent has 
 not, for calling them out in this extraordinary man- 
 ner. I would also refer to the mamier in which this 
 discussion has been provoked. Our meeting-house 
 was solicited by and granted to the Presbyterians, 
 and a notice was read by myself from the desk, that 
 Mr. M'Calla, of Philadelphia, would preach to our 
 congregation on the following Thursday evening. 
 And what sort of a discourse do you think he gave us ? 
 Not a gospel sermon, for he announced at the outset 
 that his object was controversial, but an harangue 
 of three hours and a half! — Not like the present 
 address referrmg us to God-denying heretics of the 
 fourth and fifth centm'ies. No ! but denouncing and 
 sending us all to hell as " God-denying heretics" — 
 assuming to be Christians when we were "the worst 
 enemies that Jesus Christ had." By what right, I 
 would ask, does that gentleman presume to denounce 
 us as God-denying heretics, the enemies of Jesus 
 Christ, because we differ from him on some points 
 of Christian doctrine ? In so doing, does he mani- 
 fest the meek and lowly spirit of Jesus Christ ? Is 
 he not rather assuming the right to judge and pro- 
 scribe those whose lives are holy and devout because 
 they will not subscribe to his absurd dogmas ? 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 51 
 
 The author of this attack accuses us of "making a 
 rehgion by attempting to improve on the Bible, that 
 we are infidels and atheists, denying every thing 
 sacred in that holy book.'' The object of the attack 
 is perfectly understood. Much excitement has pre- 
 vailed through our preaching in this section of the 
 country, — the word of God has been embraced — 
 and the creeds of men are going into disrepute. 
 Many are coming out from the world and confessing 
 the Lord. 
 
 It is with us as it was with the children of Israel 
 when they passed into the land of the Moabites. 
 The Moabites said, "the Israelites will eat us up," 
 so the Moabites and Midianites combined together 
 and Balak sent for Balaam to come and curse Israel. 
 (Numbers xxii. xxiii. xxiv.) But unlike Balaam of 
 old, this modern Balaam, who, by his own confes- 
 sion, has been brought here by a " Holy Alliance" 
 of Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists and Episco- 
 palians to put us down, hesitates not to curse those 
 whom the Lord blesseth. 
 
 After hearing the gentleman for three hours and 
 a half, we were brow-beaten into the acceptance of 
 a challenge to defend the doctrine for which he had 
 presumed to denounce us. This is our apology for 
 consenting to appear before you in this public dis- 
 cussion ; and I hope that this protracted meeting 
 may result in something better than many have anti- 
 cipated — the glory of God and the salvation of souls. 
 
 We are here assembled to discuss the question : — 
 " Is there a plurality of persons in the Divine Es- 
 sence?" To show you what the Presbyterians un- 
 
52 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 derstand by this question, I will refer you to their 
 Confession of Faith: — " There is but one only living 
 and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, 
 a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts or 
 passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehen- 
 sible," &c. And " in the unity of the Godhead there 
 be three persons of one substance, power and eter- 
 nity — God the Father, God the Son, and God the 
 Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begot- 
 ten nor proceeding ;. the Son is eternally begotten of 
 the Father, the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from 
 the Father and the Son." 
 
 Now there is much in all this which we do not be- 
 lieve. This doctrine of the Trinity maintains the 
 existence of three persons in the Godhead. Not 
 three substances, the gentleman says — he does not 
 mean three beings : the Confession of Faith says — 
 '' God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy 
 Ghost !" Does not this mean three 7 We must be 
 governed by the language ; or is this language to be 
 considered unmeaning? The sentiments are pre- 
 sumed to be conveyed by the words. If there is no 
 definite meaning attached to this Confession of Faith, 
 how are we to understand its doctrines ? The exist- 
 ence of three distinct beings, is evidently the doctrine 
 of the Confession of Faith ; but we say that the terms 
 three persons in the Godhead^ are not to be found 
 in the Bible ; hence, that the doctrine, as well as the 
 language; is unscriptural. 
 
 When we approach this subject, it ought to be 
 with a prayerful solemnity. Ought we not in speak- 
 ing of God, to use God's words ? Is not the doctrme 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 53 
 
 which requh'es unscriptural language suspicious? 
 In national concerns we say, what is the law ? and 
 what is the letter of the constitution by which we 
 are guided ? In a last will and testament, do we not 
 take great care to observe minutely the letter — ^the 
 express language of the instrument — and to attach 
 to it no meaning which is not authorised by custom 
 and analogy ? If a doubtful word occur it is to be 
 decided by an impartial view of the whole instru- 
 ment. We are not to add to the constitution, nor a 
 word to a last will and testament. And, saith the 
 Prophet, "Every word of God is pure — add not 
 thou to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be 
 found a liar." But the Confession of Faith is an 
 addition to the word of God ; and to those that add 
 to this Word, shall be added the plagues that are 
 written in the book. It is one plague to make peo- 
 ple believe this creed — another to make them under- 
 stand it, when they say they believe it. 
 
 ''' Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." 
 It does not say our God is three, nor that we may 
 -have two other Gods ! The language of scripture is, 
 ^Uhe High and Holy One," — not the Holy three, 
 
 "Suppose that, on an impartial examination of 
 the Scriptures, the followmg facts should be disco- 
 vered as unquestionably true ; — That in as many as 
 thirty instances God is styled ^ the Holy Three of 
 Israel ;' that in many other cases he is styled ' the 
 Holy Three,' or ^ the high and lofty Three,' but 
 never ' the Holy One ;' that, in speaking of them- 
 selves, the Holy Three are accustomed to the use 
 of this language : ' We are the God ; and besides us 
 there is no God,' ^ Thou shalt have no other gods 
 5* 
 
54 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 before us ;^ that there are several thousands of pro- 
 noims for God, Jehovah, the Most High, all of which 
 are m the plural form, excepting three or four, as 
 we, our, us, — not /, 7ni/, me ; that all the prayers 
 and every ascription of praise, which are found in 
 the Bible as addressed to God, are addressed to the 
 Holy Three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Spirit. Now what would be thought of learned 
 Clixistians who should treat all this evidence as no- 
 thing, and boldly subscribe a creed which declares 
 that God is one person only ? Should we not think 
 we had good reason to say, that they are remarkably 
 blinded by their prejudices? Suppose once more, 
 that these Christians should not oiily treat as of no 
 weight such a flood of evidence that God is Three, 
 but also treat the believers in that doctrine as un- 
 worthy of the Christian name ; would not such con- 
 duct not only grieve but astonish all candid and 
 well-informed men ? 
 
 " In making these suppositions, I have only sup- 
 posed the reverse of what is in fact true, as to the 
 evidence which the Bible affords that God is but one 
 person. He is thirty times styled ' the Holy One of 
 Israel,' — ^not ' Holy Ones^ ! ! — many other times he 
 is called 'the Holy One,^ or 'the high and lofty One.^ 
 I shall therefore leave it to others to estimate the 
 wisdom and candor of those who reject all this evi- 
 dence, — subscribe a creed which declares God to be 
 three distinct persons, and deny even the Christian 
 name to those who believe that God is but one 
 person.^' 
 
 But, says my opponent's Confession of Faith, "We 
 believe in one God." Then, so far we are agreed. 
 He says, "We believe God is unchangeable." Again 
 we are agreed. We say that this is one of the most 
 important and grave articles of our faith, that there 
 is but one God. But to this High and Holy One, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 55 
 
 the gentleman adds three persons, and calls God the 
 Three-one God — Triune God — Trinity, &c. AVhere 
 has he Scripture for this? "He who coins new words 
 coins new doctrines." We beUeve in this one God, 
 and that Jesus Christ is the vSon of God — not that 
 God of whom he is the Son, nor that they are one God 
 or Bemg. Nor do we say that Jesus is equal with 
 the Father. Christ himself says — "My Father is 
 greater than I." If then we say, there are three 
 Gods, do we not contradict him, when he says 
 " This is life eternal, that they might know thee the 
 onli/ true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
 sent?" Does not this language utterly exclude the 
 idea of three co-equal persons in God ? Or that he 
 whom God has sent as the medium by whom we are 
 to know the only true God can be equal with that 
 God who sent him ? If the man Christ Jesus is not 
 the Mediator between God and men, but the supreme 
 God, where is the Infinite atonement? Between 
 whom does he mediate, and by whose appointment ? 
 If Jesus Christ died, can he be that God who raised 
 him ? 
 
 We believe that God is the Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, but not our Lord Jesus Christ of whom 
 he is the Father. We believe that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God, not " eternally begotten," but exist- 
 ing in the mmd of the Father from everlasting. We 
 believe that God made him of the seed of David, 
 according to the flesh, and " hath made that same 
 Jesus to be both Lord and Christ" — ^the ^Mediator 
 between God and men — the man Christ Jesus. Can 
 we deny Christ's atonement more positively than by 
 
56 
 
 insisting that he is God ? Can you astound the Jews 
 more effectually than by saying that the Messiah 
 for whom they look, is to be their Jehovah ? No ! 
 
 These are briefly our views, and do they justify the 
 gentleman in his endeavor to saddle upon us the ab- 
 surd doctrines of INIr. Kinkade — a man raised on the 
 frontiers and accustomed to preach with his sword 
 by his side ? Many of his views are very gross and 
 differ widely from our ideas of the Divme Being. 
 We are the followers of no man. We are the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus Christ, and are governed by no creed 
 but the Scriptures. We acknowledge no names but 
 those by which the disciples of Jesus are called in 
 the Word of God. 
 
 If the Lord permits us to meet on the morrow, we 
 will show you where this doctrine of the Trinity 
 originated. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 57 
 
 Wednesday, 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 Yesterday afternoon I read an address from Mr. 
 Kinkade, a brother of my opponent, but of whom 
 he appears now to be ashamed. It was an appeal 
 to the Christian church, to the Scriptures, and to 
 common sense, to show that we do not understand 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not the truth. 
 We do not pretend to comprehend the doctrine fally, 
 and yet it is far from unintelligible. It can be under- 
 stood, though not fully comprehended. The Father 
 is God — is not that understood? The Son is God, 
 and the Holy Spirit is God. That is equally intel- 
 ligible. The proof is plain that these three are of 
 one Divine essence. The Bible is explicit on this 
 subject, for there is neither name, act nor attribute 
 of the Godhead, that is not shared in common by all 
 the persons of the Trinity. The unity of the Trinity 
 is also proven by numerous passages of Scripture. 
 This unity, considered in itself, is incomprehensible. 
 Angels themselves cannot comprehend the Infinite 
 Jehovah. Nor can we comprehend our own na- 
 tures. Man has a soul and a mortal body ! This is 
 intelligible but not comprehensible — all about it we 
 never shall understand. It is incomprehensible to 
 all but God. That Christ was manifest in the flesh, 
 is intelligible, but the manner is in some respects in- 
 comprehensible. — This is one of the mysteries of 
 
58 
 
 God. ** Great is the mystery of Godliness — God 
 manifest in the flesh." It is not a "fable," how- 
 ever, as this pamphlet, distributed among you yester- 
 day by my opponent, would have you believe. He 
 says — 
 
 " Come, let it now be understood, 
 Can man be God, or God manhood 1 
 Can they be one, and the same being 1 
 Yet one be dead, the other living'? 
 
 But this a mystery is they tell, 
 Yet schoolmen understand it well ; 
 If a mystery 'tis indeed, 
 How it is no one can read." 
 
 To which I answer, that no mystery can change 
 Deity into humanity or humanity into Deity. The 
 mystery of Godliness is, that there was an incompre- 
 hensible union between a Divine person and a hu- 
 man soul and body, without conversion or composi- 
 tion of natures or confusion of persons. 
 
 From the earliest days to the present time, the 
 Unitarians have been accustomed to mysteries as 
 well as ourselves ; only theirs was not the mystery 
 of Godliness, but the mystery of iniquity, as Irenasus 
 shows. " In public (he says) they use alluring dis- 
 courses, because of the common Christians, as they 
 call those who wear the Christian name in general ; 
 and to entice them to come often, they pretend to 
 preach like us ; and complain that though their doc- 
 trine be the same as ours, we abstain from their 
 communion, and call them heretics. When they 
 have seduced any from the faith by their disputes, 
 and made them willing to comply with them, they 
 begin to open their mysteries." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 59 
 
 This work of Kinkade is abhorrent to the pubUc 
 mind, and these "Christians'^ wished to get rid of it. 
 But it is not all that has been pubhshed by the So- 
 ciety. Lorenzo D. Fleming, another of my oppo- 
 nent's brethren, has published a series of letters, 
 addressed to Elder Amos Chase, a Baptist minister, 
 and at page 18 of his pamphlet, holds the following 
 language, viz : — " In respect to comnumicated ful- 
 ness, or sufficiency, we have the following declara- 
 tions : — 'He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words 
 of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure 
 unto him.' (John iii. 34.) 'For it pleased the Father 
 that in him should all fulness dwell.' (Cor. i. 19.) 
 'In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily.' (Col. ii. 9.) Such then has been the plea- 
 sure of God, in respect to endowing his So7i with 
 divine sufficiency. And if it hath pleased the Fa- 
 ther that all fulness should dwell in his Son, we can 
 with no more propriety set bounds to the sufficiency 
 of Christ, than we can to the fulness of the God- 
 head." At page 31, he has the following words, 
 viz : — ■" That creatures were indeed said to be of 
 God, because, not existing of themselves, they had 
 their begmning from him ; but that the Son was 
 peculiarly of the Father, being of his substance as 
 begotten of him ! Now, if this was the decision of 
 the Council of Nice, it is more than I should be Avil- 
 ling to subscribe to myself. The whole amount of 
 the decision is, that Scripture testimony proves that 
 the Son was of the same substance with the Father; 
 that is, that he was peculiarly the Father, being of 
 his substance as begotten of him,^^ At page 28, 
 
60 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 the same writer uses the following words, viz : — 
 " We hold that the Father is engaged to reconcile 
 sinners to himself, through the instrumentality of his 
 Son, who is the next greatest being in the universe 
 to God/' 
 
 In these extracts you see these mysteries in the 
 doctrme of these Christian Unitarians. In the first 
 extract, he attributes to Christ the Spirit without 
 measure — ^the fulness of the Godhead — a divine suf- 
 ficiency — a sufficiency as boundless as the fulness of 
 the Deity. In the second extract, he tells us that 
 this full, sufficient, boimdless, Divine one, is of the 
 same substance or being with the Father, as the 
 Trinitarian Council of Nice declares. And yet, in 
 the last extract, he says, that his sect holds that 
 Christ is only the next greatest being in the universe 
 to God. This is their mystery — their fable. Our 
 mystery, though incomprehensible, is not contradic- 
 tory — theirs is, in one breath, with the strictest doc- 
 trine of the Council of Nice, and, in the next breath, 
 with the God-denying heresy of Theodotus and my 
 opponent. When Irenaeus speaks of these myste- 
 ries, he means just such as those of the brother of 
 my opponent. He has one set of sermons in one 
 pocket, and another in the other. He has the Coun- 
 cil of Nice for Episcopalians and Methodists, Bap- 
 tists and Presbyterians, and when they are once 
 initiated, Christ is only the second greatest being — 
 that is, he is infinitely below what the Bible repre- 
 sents him. 
 
 In Kinkade, page 131, you have the following 
 words, viz : — 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 61 
 
 ^'■'Some people contend that Christ is dependant 
 on God for all he has, but still they think he is un- 
 created : they say he is God's Son in the proper 
 sense of the word : that as he derived his existence 
 from God, he is therefore of the same specific sub- 
 stance as the Father. 
 
 " I believe that Barton W. Stone, and Noah Wor- 
 cester, have both advocated this sentiment. I never 
 read the second edition of brother Stone's address to 
 the Christian Church, nor his letters to Dr. Blythe, 
 but I read his letter to Moreland, and his letter to 
 Spencer Clark, in both of which he advocates the 
 doctrine. I have read none of brother Worcester's 
 writings, except two or three letters in his Bible 
 news, where he attempts to prove that Christ is the 
 Son of God, in a proper sense ; that is, that he is the 
 Son of God in the same sense that Isaac was the 
 Son of Abraham." 
 
 Here you observe that dear brethren of the Unita- 
 rian school, may hold sentiments exceedingly differ- 
 ent and contradictory, absurd and blasphemous, 
 leading to the Shaker doctrine, and the doctrine of 
 the grossest denial of Christ's divinity in every sense 
 or degree, and yet sweetly fraternize with each 
 other. "Ever learning, and never coming to a 
 knowledge of the truth." This is their mystery, 
 or rather fable, of irreconcilables, the equal of which 
 they will never find among us. 
 
 At page 159 of the same book, he says — "That 
 God is a real person, appears from the following 
 beautiful passage in Daniel : ' I beheld till the thrones 
 were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, 
 whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of 
 his head like the pure wool, and his throne was like 
 
 6 
 
62 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire !' And 
 same page, he asks — ^ As the four beasts, the Son of 
 Man, and the great multitude that stood before the 
 Ancient of Days, have shape and local habitations, 
 and as shape and locality are as much ascribed to 
 him as they are to them, by what analogy are we 
 to conclude, that God has no shape nor local habi- 
 tation ? 
 
 " If God's person fills all space, he can have no 
 shape, because shape always implies superficies, and 
 that which is unbounded, has no surface. What- 
 ever is too subtile to have any shape, must be qua- 
 lity, and a quality, or attribute has no existence se- 
 parate from the being that possesses it, therefore, if 
 God is nothing but a quality, he cannot be an agent, 
 nor an intelligent being ; hence the conclusion is ir- 
 resistible, that if he has no shape, he has no real 
 existence, because the being that exists in no shape, 
 exists not at all. 
 
 ^' The Presbyterian confession of faith says, ^ God 
 is without body, parts, or passions.' In my view 
 this is equal to Atheism ; because if we divest him 
 of these, there is nothing left that would constitute 
 being, or that would be perceptible to the mind. 
 
 " Ears, hands, and eyes are parts of an intelligent 
 ruler, and if God has none of these, he cannot hear, 
 handle, nor see us. If he is without passions, he 
 has no mercy, love, nor anger, and therefore cannot 
 forgive us, love us, nor be angry with us, because 
 if he has not these passions, he cannot exercise them. 
 If it were possible for the divine Being to exist with- 
 out body, parts, or passions, he would be to us 
 neither desirable, dreadful, nor useful. 
 
 "It is only from the Bible that we learn the 
 existence of God, and that book ascribes to him 
 nearly all the members of the human body, and re- 
 presents him to be in the shape of a man. That 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 63 
 
 various members of the human body are ascribed to 
 him, appears from the following texts. ' The eyes 
 of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are 
 open unto their cry. The face of tlie Lord is against 
 them that do evil. Psal. xxxiv. 15, 16. " He shall 
 gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in 
 his bosom." Isa. xl. 11. 'I will turn my hand 
 upon thee." Isa. i. 25. 'The Lord is a man of war, 
 the Lord is his name.' Exod. xv. 3. ' And God said 
 let us make man in om' image, after our likeness.' 
 ' So God created man in his own image, in the image 
 of God created he him.' Gen. i. 26, 27. 
 
 " Some suppose that Being created in the image 
 of God, only means that man was made holy ; but 
 I think we should not restrict the word to the qua- 
 lity, it certainly extends to the personal appearance 
 of the man." 
 
 And again, page 166, he says, " The text that says 
 God measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, 
 will go just as far to prove that water has no real 
 existence, as it will to prove that God has no hand. 
 That the hands and eyes of the Lord are sometimes 
 mentioned in Scripture to represent his power and 
 wisdom, is ' no proof that he has no hands and eyes ; 
 because the hands of men are sometimes mentioned 
 to represent their power." This is the book published 
 by the " Cliristians," and distributed ; and which 
 would have been thrown about gratis, as was Mr. 
 Plummer's pamphlet yesterday, but for the size and 
 cost of the work. Real Christians have always be- 
 lieved that the true God is without shape or figure. 
 The Pagan Jupiter had a shape I What is my op- 
 ponent's creed on this subject ? His brother Kinkade 
 says, " if God has no shape, he has no real existence, 
 because the being that exists in no shape, exists not at 
 
64 
 
 all." Real Christians have always believed that the 
 Scriptui'es apply head, hands and feet to the Creator, 
 in a figurative sense, and that in reality he has no 
 such members. Not so with Jove the Father of the 
 Pagans, nor with the Jupiter of my opponent. JVIr. 
 Kinkade says the Bible ascribes to God " nearly all 
 the 'members of the human body, and represents 
 hmi to be in the shape of a man.'^ " Ears, hands 
 and eyes, (he says) are parts of an intelligent ruler, 
 and if God has none of these, he cannot hear, handle, 
 nor see us." 
 
 I was forestalled yesterday by my opponent, in 
 referenca to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. He 
 gave you a few garbled extracts, but I have no 
 doubt would swallow the whole, if he could seduce 
 you from your allegiance to Jesus Christ. The Con- 
 fession of Faith says that God is without body, parts, 
 or passions. This, according to my opponent's 
 friend, Mr. Kinkade, "is equal to Atheism." "Di- 
 vest him of these, (he says) and nothing is left that 
 would constitute being, or that would be perceptible 
 to the mind." There is the God of these Unitarians. 
 They have gone back to genuine Paganism — Jupiter 
 again ! Unitarians and " Christians''^ both carry on 
 the same due deception, to draw you from God and 
 destroy yoiu: souls ! 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 65 
 
 MR. PLUMMER, after prayer, said, 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen^ 
 
 We pledged ourselves yesterday, to give you the 
 origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, or three persons 
 in one Divine essence, and to introduce some pas- 
 sages in the history of the age in which it was 
 brought into existence. I was glad to hear the gentle- 
 man aclaiowledge that the doctrine established at the 
 Council of Nice was the doctrine for which he is 
 now contending. If it had its origin in the Council 
 of Nice, of course it could not have existed pre- 
 viously. We have already shown that the language 
 of the Confession of Faith does not agree with the 
 language of Scripture. We will now show you 
 where the doctrine of this Confession of Faith ori- 
 ginated. 
 
 The work to which I shall call your attention, is 
 Jones' Church History. Its statements have never 
 been contradicted by any other Church Histoiy. 
 According to this historian, the sentiments of the 
 primitive Christians, for the first three centmies, 
 were generally speaking pretty uniform. But in the 
 reign of Consta.ntine, a dispute arose which may be 
 said to have involved all Christendom in a flame. 
 It originated m the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, 
 between two pastors of that Church, Alexander and 
 Arius, and soon spread into other churches, inflam- 
 ing bishops against bishops, who, under the pretext 
 of supporting Divine truth, excited tumults, and 
 6* 
 
66 PLUMPER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 fomented the most deadly strifes and hatreds towards 
 each other. In a letter to Eusebius, the sentiments 
 of Alexander are thus represented by Arius : — " God 
 is always, and the Son always — the same time the 
 Father, the same time the Son — the Son co-exists with 
 God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, being mi- 
 begottenly begotten — God was not before the Son, 
 no, not in conception, or the least point of time, he 
 being ever God, ever a Son — for the Son is out of 
 God himself." Alexander, on the other hand, re- 
 presents the doctrines of Arius as equally absurd. 
 Both thus leaving the plain language of Scripture, 
 and introducing terms of their own invention into the 
 doctrine of pure revelation, numerous expedients 
 were tried to bring them together, the Emperor him- 
 self condescending to become a mediator between 
 them. But all attempts proved fruitless, and finding 
 all other recourses ineffectual, the emperor was at 
 length under the necessity of issuing letters to the 
 bishops of the several provinces of the empire, en- 
 joinmg them to assemble together at Nice, in Bythmia, 
 wiiich was accordingly done, A. D. 325. This is 
 what goes by the name of '' the First General Coun- 
 cil." The number of bishops was three hundred 
 and eighteen, besides a multitude of presbyters, dea- 
 cons, acolythists, and others, amounting in the whole 
 to two thousand and forty -eight persons. The eccle- 
 siastical historians inform us, that in this vast collec- 
 tion of the bishops, some were remarkable for their 
 gravity, patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, 
 and eloquence, yet they all agree that there were 
 others of very opposite characters. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 67 
 
 Before they entered upon the discussion of any- 
 thing that related to the great object of their meet- 
 ing, the bishops began with complaining to the em- 
 peror of each other, and vindicating themselves. He, 
 however, ultimately succeeded in restoring them to 
 some degree of temper, and they proceeded in good 
 earnest to dr^w up a creed which they were all re- 
 quired to subscribe, as the only true and orthodox 
 faith, and which, from the place where they were 
 assembled, bears the title of the "Nicene Creed." 
 ^^As a matter of curiosity," says the historian, "I 
 subjoin this summary of the orthodox faith at this 
 period : 
 
 " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
 INIaker of all things, visible and invisible. And in 
 one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only be- 
 gotten ; begotten of the Father, that is, of the sub- 
 stance of the Father. God of God ; Light of Light ; 
 true God of true God ; begotten, not made ; consub- 
 stantial with the Father, by whom all things were 
 made, things in heaven, and things on earth ; who 
 for us men, and for our salvation, came down and 
 was incarnate, and became man, suifered and rose 
 again the third day, and ascended into the heavens, 
 and comes to judge the quick and the dead : and in 
 the Holy Ghost. And the catholic and apostolic 
 church doth anathematize those persons who say, 
 that there was a time when the Son of God was 
 not ; that he was not before he was born ; that he 
 was made of nothing, or of another substance or 
 being ; or that he is created, or changeable, or con- 
 vertible." 
 
68 
 
 "When these things were ended, Constantine 
 splendidly treated the bishops, filled their pockets, 
 and sent them honorably home, exhorting them at 
 parting to maintain peace among themselves, and 
 that none of them should envy another who might 
 excel the rest in wisdom or eloquence — that they 
 should not carry themselves haughtily towards their 
 inferiors, but condescend to, and bear with, their 
 weakness ; — a convincing proof that he saw into 
 their tempers, and was no stranger to the haughti- 
 ness and pride that influenced some, and the envy 
 and hatred that prevailed in others." 
 
 Fine characters to originate a new system for God ! 
 
 " The Scriptures were now no longer the standard 
 of the Christian faith. What Avas orthodox, and 
 what heterodox, was, from hence forward, to be de- 
 termined by the decisions of fathers and councils; 
 and religion propagated, not by the apostolic methods 
 of persuasion, accompanied with the meekness and 
 gentleness of Christ, but by imperial edicts and de- 
 crees : nor were gainsayers to be brought to convic- 
 tion by the simple weapons of reason and Scripture, 
 but persecuted and destroyed. It cannot surprise 
 us, if after this we find a continual fluctuation of the 
 public faith, just as the prevailing party obtained 
 the imperial authority to support them ; or that we 
 should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history 
 than violence and cruelties, committed by men who 
 had wholly departed from the simplicity of the Chris- 
 tian doctrine and profession ; men enslaved to avarice 
 and ambition ; and carried away with views of tempo- 
 ral grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 69 
 
 I would look to the Bible several times for a 
 creed, before I would look to such characters. 
 
 "To dwell upon the disgraceful cabals, the vio- 
 lent invectives, and slanderous recriminations of 
 those ruling factions, would afford little edification 
 to the reader, and certainly no pleasure to the writer. 
 Were we disposed to give credit to the complaints 
 of the orthodox against the Arians, Ave must cer- 
 tainly regard them as the most execrable set of men 
 that ever lived. They are loaded with all the crimes 
 that can possibly be committed, and represented as 
 bad, if not worse, than infernal spirits. And had the 
 writings of the Arians not been destroyed, we should, 
 no doubt, have found as many and grievous charges 
 laid by them, perhaps with equal justice, against the 
 Athanasians. Constantius banished Athanasius from 
 his bishopric at Alexandria, and wrote a letter to the 
 citizens, in which he terms him 'an impostor, a 
 corrupter of men's souls, a disturber of the city, a 
 pernicious fellow, one convicted of the worst crimes, 
 not to be expiated by his suffering death ten times f 
 and a bishop, named George, was put into his see, 
 whom this eloquent emperor is pleased to style * a 
 most venerable person, and the most capable of all 
 men to instruct them in heavenly things.' Athana- 
 sius, however, in his usual style, calls him ' an idola- 
 ter and hangman ; and one capable of all kinds of 
 violence, rapine, and murders ;' and whom he actu- 
 ally charges with committing the most impious 
 actions and outrageous cruelties. 
 
 "The truth is, that the clergy of the Catholic 
 church were now become the principal disturbers of 
 
70 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA^S 
 
 the empire ; and the pride of the bishops, and the fury 
 of the people on each side had grown to such a 
 height, that the election or restoration of a bishop 
 seldom took place in the larger cities, without being 
 attended with scenes of slaughter. Athanasius was 
 several times banished and restored at the expense 
 of blood. What shall we make of the Christianity 
 of the man who could act thus, or countenance such 
 proceedings ? Had Athanasius been influenced by 
 the benign and peaceable spirit of the gospel, he 
 would at once have withdrawn himself from such 
 disgraceful scenes, and preferred to worship God in 
 the society of only a dozen day-laborers in a cellar 
 or a garret, to all the honor and all the emolument 
 which he could derive from being exalted to the dig- 
 nity of archbishop of Alexandria, on such degrading 
 conditions. One can scarcely forbear contrasting his 
 conduct with the behaviour of Him, whose servant 
 he professed to be. 'When Jesus perceived that 
 they would come and take him by force, and make 
 him a king, he departed again into a mountain 
 alone.^ John vi. 15. The fruits of the Spirit are 
 not turbulence and strife ; ' but love, joy, peace, 
 long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meek- 
 ness and temperance ; and they that are Christ's 
 have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.' 
 Gal. V. 22.'' 
 
 I think our dearly beloved brother Pierpont will 
 get into Heaven, if he possess all these virtues, even 
 if he is mistaken on one point — but it remams to be 
 proven that he is mistaken. 
 
 "The orthgdox were deposed, and the Arians 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 71 
 
 substituted in their places, with the murder of thou- 
 sands ; and as the controversy was now no longer 
 about the plain doctrines of uncorrupted Christianity, 
 but about secular honors and dignified preferments, 
 so the bishops were introduced into their churches 
 and placed upon their thrones by armed soldiers. 
 And when once m actual possession, they treated 
 those who differed from them without moderation 
 or mercy, turning them out of their churches, deny- 
 ing them the liberty of worship, fulminating anathe- 
 mas against them, and persecuting them by every 
 species of cruelty, as is evident from the accounts 
 given by the ecclesiastical historians of Athanasius, 
 Macedonius, George, and others. In short, they 
 seem to have treated one another with the same im- 
 placable bitterness and severity, as their common 
 enemies, the heathen, had ever exercised towards 
 them, or as though they thought persecution for con- 
 science-sake had been the distinguishing character- 
 istic of the Christian religion, and that they could 
 not more effectually recommend themselves as the 
 disciples of Christ, than by devouring each other." 
 
 Conscience-sake — don't forget that ! 
 
 " This made Julian, the emperor, say of them, that 
 he found by experience, that even the beasts of the 
 forest are not so cruel as the generality of Christians 
 then were to one another. Such was the wretched 
 state of things in the reign of Constantius, which 
 affords us little more than the history of councils and 
 creeds differing from, and clashing with each other 
 — bishops deposing, censuring, and anathematizing 
 their adversaries, and the people divided into factions 
 
72 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 under their respective leaders, for the sake of words, 
 of the meaning of which they understood nothing, 
 and contending for victory even imto bloodshed and 
 death. Thus, as Socrates observes, ' was the church 
 torn in pieces for the sake of Athanasius and the 
 word consubstantial!^ ^' 
 
 Athanasius and consubstantial ! — just as much 
 sense in this, as in quarrelling about the term three 
 persons in one essence. "Let them alone, then," 
 says one. We will, when we are allowed to ex- 
 press our sentiments in Bible language, without 
 being denounced as " God-denying heretics." 
 
 " It probably would not be easy to sketch in a 
 few words a more striking picture of these times 
 than that which is given us by Ammianus Marcelli- 
 nus, Avho, having served in the armies, had the best 
 opportunities of studying the character of Constan- 
 tius. ' The Christian religion, which in itself,' says 
 he, ' is plain and simple, he confounded by the do- 
 tage of superstition. Instead of reconciling the par- 
 ties by the weight of his authority, he cherished and 
 propagated by verbal disputes, the differences which 
 his vain curiosity had excited. The highways ivere 
 covered with troops of bishops, galloping f7'0'm 
 every side to the assemblies, which they called 
 synods; and while they labored to reduce the whole 
 sect to their own particular opinions, the public esta- 
 blishment of the posts was almost ruined by their 
 hasty and repeated journeys.' It was certainly a 
 very just, though severe censure, which Gregory 
 Nazianzen passed upon the councils that were held 
 about this time. ^ If I must speak the truth,' says 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 73 
 
 he, ^ this is my resolution, to avoid all councils of the 
 bishops, for I have not seen any good end answered 
 by any synod whatsoever ; for their love of conten- 
 tion, and their lust of power, are too great even for 
 words to express.^ The scepticism of Gibbon has 
 subjected him to an unmeasurable effusion of ran- 
 cour from the clergy of his day ; and far be it from 
 me to stand forward the advocate of scepticism in 
 any man ; but I most cordially agree with that emi- 
 nent writer, when he says, ' the patient and humble 
 virtues of Jesus should not be confounded with the 
 intolerant zeal of princes and bishops, who have dis- 
 graced the name of his disciples.' 
 
 " Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, who 
 lived during these times, adverting to this subject, 
 says, ' It was no wonder to see those who were am- 
 bitious of hmnan greatness, contending with so much 
 heat and animosity for that dignity, because when 
 they had obtained it, they were sure to be enriched 
 by the offerings of the matrons, of appearing abroad 
 in great splendor, of being admhed for their costly 
 coaches, sumptuous in their feasts, out-doing sove- 
 reign princes in the expenses of their table.' This 
 led Proetextatus, an heathen, who was praefect of the 
 city, to say, ' Make me Bishop of Rome, and Fll be 
 a Christian too!''' 
 
 Speaking of the brothers Valentinian and Valens, 
 who succeeded to the throne of the empire in 364, 
 the historian says : — 
 
 " The two emperors were of very different tem- 
 pers, and took different courses in regard to religion. 
 The former was of the orthodox party ; but though 
 
 7 
 
74 
 
 he especially favored those of his own sentiments, 
 he gave no disturbance to the Arians. Valens, on 
 the contrary, was less hberal in his views, and per- 
 secuted all who differed from him. In the beginning 
 of their reign, a synod was convened in Illyricum, 
 which again decreed the consubstantiality of Father, 
 Son, and Spirit. The emperors issued a circular 
 letter, declaring their assent to this, and ordering that 
 this doctrine should be preached — though they pub- 
 lished laws for the toleration of all religious denomi- 
 nations, and even of Paganism. In the year 375, 
 Valentinian died suddenly m a transport of rage, 
 and Valens being sole emperor, was soon prevailed 
 on by the artifice of Eudoxius, Bishop of Constanti- 
 nople, to take a decided part with the Arians, and to 
 abandon his moderation, by cruelly persecuting the 
 Orthodox. The first thing that fired his resentment 
 was the conduct of these latter, who had solicited and 
 obtained his permission to hold a synod at Lampsa- 
 cus, for the amendment and settlement of the faith ; 
 when, after two months' consultation, they decreed 
 the doctrine of the Son's being like the Father as to 
 his essence, to be the true orthodox faith, and de- 
 posed all the bishops of the Arian party. This 
 highly exasperated Valens, who, without delay, 
 convened a council of the Arian bishops, and in his 
 turn, commanded the bishops who composed the 
 synod of Lampsacus to embrace the sentiments of 
 Eudoxius the Arian : and upon their refusal, sent 
 them into exile, transferring their churches to their 
 opponents. After this, he pursued measures still 
 more violent against them : some were commanded 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 75 
 
 to be whipped, others disgraced, not a few impri- 
 soned, and many fined. 
 
 " After having reigned fourteen years, Valens lost 
 his hfe in a battle with the Goths, A. D. 378, and 
 was succeeded in the government of the empire by 
 Gratian, the son of Valentinian. He was of the 
 orthodox party; and after the death of his uncle 
 Valens, he recalled those that had been banished — 
 restored them to their sees, and sent Sapores, one of 
 his captams, to drive the Arians, like wild beasts, 
 out of all their churches. This emperor, soon after 
 his accession to power, miited with himself as col- 
 league in the government, ' the great Theodosius, a 
 name celebrated in history, and dear to the Catholic 
 church.' 
 
 " Immediately on his advancement to the throne 
 of the empire, Theodosius betrayed a warm zeal for 
 the orthodox opinions. Hearing that the city of 
 Constantinople was divided into different religious 
 parties, he wrote a letter to them from Thessa- 
 lonica, wherein he acquaints them, that 'it was 
 his pleasure, that all his subjects should be of 
 the same religious profession with Damasus, bishop 
 of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and that 
 their church alone should be denominated ^ Catholic,' 
 who v/orshipped the divine Trmity as equal in ho- 
 nor, and that those who were of another opinion 
 should be called heretics, become infamous, and be 
 liable to other punishments.' And on his arrival in 
 the imperial city, he sent for Demophilus, the Arian 
 bishop, demanding to know whether he would sub- 
 scribe the Nicene confession of faith, adding, ' if you 
 
76 
 
 refuse to do it, I will drive you from your churches ;' 
 and he kept his word, for he turned him and all the 
 Arians out of the city. 
 
 " The more effectually to extinguish heresy, he, in 
 the year 383, summoned a council of bishops of his 
 own persuasion to meet at Constantinople, in order 
 to confirm the Nicene faith; the number of them 
 amounted to an hundred and fifty, to which may be 
 added, thirty-six of the Macedonian party. This is 
 commonly termed the second Oecumenical or gene- 
 ral council. They decreed that the Nicene faith 
 should be the standard of orthodoxy, and that all 
 heresies should be condemned." 
 
 Thus have I redeemed my pledge, given to you 
 yesterday. Here is where the doctrine of the Trinity 
 had its origin — ^not the origin of the doctrine of one 
 God, and one Mediator between God and men — the 
 INIan Christ Jesus — but of the heresies which sprang 
 up in the third and fourth centuries. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 77 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 My opponent has gone on to prove that the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity origmated in the Council of 
 Nice. He has endeavored to give you the impres- 
 sion that I have admitted this. My conscience 
 would not allow me so to misrepresent him. I said 
 that the rejection of Christ's divinity was called by 
 the ancient Ciiristians the " God-denying heresy." 
 The Christian church has always believed the Fa- 
 ther divine, the Son divine, and the Holy Spirit 
 divine. 
 
 The work to which my opponent has referred, 
 was written by a Baptist, and Avith the view of 
 communicating information to those whose views of 
 the gospel of Christ, comcide pretty much with his 
 own. I have always been very much disposed to 
 lean towards these old fathers, but my confidence 
 of late years has been much weakened in their in- 
 fallibility. Mr. Jones sometimes appears to be a lit- 
 tle virulent in his remarks, but the more I reflect, the 
 more I am disposed to like him. Mr. Isaac Taylor, 
 of England, has also written a sound work m rela- 
 tion to these old fathers, which makes me blush for 
 human nature. There was evidently too much cor- 
 ruption among them. We do not pretend to hold 
 them up as infallible, nor can we worship them as 
 Gods, though they might do for Mr. Kinkade's or my 
 opponent's God. 
 
 I have come here to defend the cause of my Di- 
 7* 
 
78 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 vine Master, and not to excuse the corruption, ambi- 
 tion, nor avarice of the ancient Fathers. " Our dear 
 brother Pierpont," or Dr. Chamiing, might agree 
 very well with these fathers, so far as they held to Pa- 
 gan corruptions, and so might their brother Gannett. 
 "Brother Gannett" travelled in England and Scot- 
 land, and heard clergymen of all sorts and sizes. On 
 his return, he published a bo'6k, telling all he had 
 heard and seen, and how the bigotry he had wit- 
 nessed among Trinitarians, made him long for Pagan 
 instruction. It is wonderful that he did not send to 
 India for a Brahmin. Though if he will only read 
 Kmkade, or Mr. Plmmner's pamphlet, he will get 
 enough of Pagan instruction without sending to 
 India. 
 
 My opponent says, " Give us Bible language ! 
 Avoid a Comicil of Bishops !" So say I. But he 
 evidently does not understand the matter which he 
 has attempted to explain. The Trinitarians and 
 " Christians" of that age, agreed no better than they 
 do at present. Hence arose a dispute, known as the 
 "Arian Controversy." Alexander affirmed "an 
 unity in the Trinity, and particularly that the Son 
 was co-eternal, and con-substantial, and of the same 
 dignity with the Father." Arius objected to this 
 language, " that if the Father begat the Son, he who 
 was begotten must have a beginning of existence ;" 
 and from hence, says he, " 'tis manifest there was a 
 time when he (the Son) was not." This was the 
 ancient heresy. But our modem Christians have 
 improved on the doctrine of their ancient brethren. 
 Mr. Kinkade, at page 162 of his book, says, — 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 79 
 
 " Paul says, he (Christ) is the brightness of his Fa- 
 ther's glory, and the express image of his person 
 (Greek hupostaseos, substance.) This text shows 
 beyond doubt that God's person or substance is in 
 the sliape of a man. It does not say, that he was 
 the image of God's mortal perfections, but it says he 
 was the express image of his person. Heb. i. 3. 
 Paul to the Collossians, says of Christ, that he is the 
 image of the mvisible God. Col. i. 15. God's moral 
 perfections have been revealed, and are visible to 
 every believer, therefore it must be his person, that 
 is called the invisible God, then Jesus Christ is the 
 image or shape of that person. 
 
 " Paul says : ' Let this mind be in you, which was 
 also in Christ Jesus : Who being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Philip. 
 ii. 5, 6. Form is distinct from quality, and always 
 relates to arrangement or shape. This shows that 
 Christ was in the form, or shape of God, before he 
 emptied himself of that glory he had with the Fa- 
 ther in his pre-existent state. And we all know that 
 in all his early appearances to the patriarchs, and 
 prophets, he appeared in the shape of a man, and 
 was frequently called a man. If he was in the form 
 of God, and that form was the shape of a man, then 
 God is in the shape of a man." 
 
 This is the new paganism. He does not even attri- 
 bute a soul to God ! He makes him the mere image 
 of an old soldier, set up to draw you back to Pagan 
 darkness. He is not satisfied with going back to the 
 old fathers. And this is the Paganism after which 
 Brother Gannett longed. 
 
 At page 133, Kinkade says: "I think Christ is a 
 created Being, and those passages that say he was be- 
 gotten always allude either to his miraculous concep- 
 tion, or his resurrection from the dead. The word 
 
80 
 
 begotten, in its proper sense, that is, according to 
 the common acceptation of the term, imphes phira- 
 hty ; to beget, is the united act of two : there- 
 fore the pre-existent Christ could not haA^e been be- 
 gotten in the proper sense of the word unless he 
 had a mother as w^ell as a father." 
 
 The Christian Church has always believed that 
 the divine Father had a divine Son, co-essential, co- 
 eternal, and co-equal with the Father, without the 
 intervention of any mother, human or divine. But 
 when Jupiter is the Father of a Pagan God, they 
 assign to him a divine mother, and when he is the 
 Father of a Demi-God, it is by a human mother. So 
 my opponent's brother, Mr. Kinkade, says : " Christ 
 could not have been begotten, in the proper sense of 
 the word,- unless he had a mother as well as a 
 Father." 
 
 At page 163, Kinkade says : " I will now attempt 
 to answer the principal objections that I have heard 
 agamst the personal, or real existence of God. 
 
 " Objection 1. If we worship God ascribing to him 
 the human shape, shall we not violate the second 
 commandment which forbids us to make and worship 
 any graven image, or any likeness of any thing ? 
 
 " Answer. It can break no commandment of God 
 to believe on, and worship him, as he has revealed 
 himself to us in his word : and although we ascribe 
 to God the shape of a man, still he is not the image 
 of a man, but man is the image of him, and God is 
 the prototype ; besides we do not make this image, 
 it is formed in our minds by the holy scripture, and 
 believing the Bible is not making nor worshipmg 
 graven images." 
 
 Here you have popery in its worst form — only 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 81 
 
 Mr. Kinkade makes God a bodily image, and the pa- 
 pists make an image of God. 
 
 " Objection 2. Christ speaking of his Father, says: 
 < Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor 
 seen his shape.' John v. 37. 
 
 " Answer, Some of the best critics read this in the 
 shape of a question, thus : ' Have you not heard his 
 voice, and seen his shape V I think it is probable 
 that this is the true reading, because the multitude 
 did hear the Father's voice when his Son was bap- 
 tized, and as they had all seen Christ, who was the 
 express image of his person, they must have seen 
 his shape. But if the common reading is correct, 
 this text shows as plainly that God has a shape, as 
 that he has a voice. If it will prove that he has no 
 shape, it will prove that he has no voice. 
 
 " Objection 3. God is a spirit, and how shall we, 
 consistently with truth, ascribe shape to a spirit ? 
 
 " Jinswer. All the spirits that the scripture gives 
 an account of being seen, were seen in the shape of 
 men. 
 
 In the thirteenth chapter of Judges, we have an 
 account of an angel, that appeared to Manoah and 
 his wife, in the shape of a man, and they called him 
 a man, but when they offered a biu:nt offering, and 
 the flame went up towards heaven from off the al- 
 tar, he ascended up with the flame of the altar. In 
 the sixth chapter of Judges, we have an accoimt of 
 an angel that appeared to Gideon in the shape of a 
 man, who is also called the Lord. 
 
 "The fourth person that was seen walking with the 
 three children in the midst of the fiery furnace, was, 
 no doubt, a spirit, yet he appeared in the shape of a 
 man. After the rich man's body was buried, he is 
 represented as a man lifting up his eyes in torment. 
 — There appeared two men, which were Moses and 
 Elias, talking with Christ in the Mount. Moses' 
 body had not then been raised from the dead, yet 
 
82 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Moses was a man. When the disciples saw Christ 
 walking on the water they thought they had seen a 
 spirit. On another occasion he said : ' Handle me, 
 and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye 
 see me have.' Luke xxiv. 39. It is plain from these 
 texts, that the difference between the people in the 
 spiritual, and natural world, is not in shape. If the 
 Saints in heaven exist, they must exist in some 
 shape, and no doubt but that it is the human shape. 
 We read of men in heaven, on earth, and under the 
 earth. Rev. v. 3.'' 
 
 Here he evidently insists upon the material form 
 of his Deity and of all spirits, so that he has no im- 
 material being — no real spirit,created nor uncreated. 
 With liim the Spirit of Men and created spiritual 
 angels, are all like his God, possessed of body, parts 
 and passions. This is as genuine paganism as can be 
 found. It is real Materialism and Atheism, and his 
 supporter finds here all that his former Atheistical 
 patron, Mr. Kneeland, could have professed. 
 
 These Christians do not really believe m a Spirit 
 more than did the Sadducees — neither the Spirit of 
 God, the Spirit of a Man, nor the Spirit of an angel. 
 
 I spent several days in listenmg to a Unitarian, 
 mitil he satisfied me that he was an Atheist. He 
 lifted his hands and swore that he believed in a God, 
 and in the inspiration of the Scriptures. I knew 
 then that he spoke falsely. He subsequently became 
 a disciple of Fanny Wright, and embraced her doc- 
 trines. Another of these Christians, to prove that 
 he is not an Atheist, has spent a long time in prayer. 
 I never could defile my conscience by giving the 
 least countenance to infidehty. The ancient fathers 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. S3 
 
 suffered martyi'dom because they would not. I saw 
 another man, under whom the Unitarians rally in 
 Philadelphia, supporting that Atheist. He has been 
 brought here — has sought " Christian'^ shelter, and 
 has fomid protection under the wings of my op- 
 ponent. The sympathy between Atheists and these 
 Unitarians is really surprismg. This is not the first 
 time it has been manifested. In another place, Mv. 
 Campbell, who agrees in sentiment with my op- 
 ponent, challenged Robert Owen to a public discus- 
 sion, and triumphed. Sometime afterward, Owen 
 was visiting that part of Virginia in which My. 
 Campbell resided, and could not pass without spend- 
 ing a few days with dear brother Campbell ! Mr. 
 Owen subsequently declared that they were among 
 the happiest days of his life. It is always so when 
 the divinity of our Lord is denied. Dr. Priestly 
 once heard some one say that Jefferson was an in- 
 fidel. "Is he?" said he — "then he is not far from 
 us!" 
 
 These are some of the enormities of a Society call- 
 ing themselves Unitarians or •• Christians." They 
 are the very opposite of the Christians of Antioch, 
 who suffered martyrdom rather than worship Jupi- 
 ter. They have an evident affinity for Jews, Moham- 
 medans and Heathen. The Pagans vv^orship a 77ia- 
 t cried God — so do the Christians. The Pagans 
 worship a God of body, parts, and passions — so do 
 the Christians. The Pagans worship a God pos- 
 sessed of all the members of the human body — 
 and the Christians have a Jupiter possessed of 
 nearly all the members of the human body. How 
 
84 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 different this heathenish stuff from the views of real 
 Christians, who worship a spiritual Father, possesed 
 of no body, parts nor passions, shape nor members, 
 and having an eternal, equal, and co-essential Son, 
 without a mother to his divine nature, and without 
 a human father to that human nature which he took 
 into union with the divine, that he might atone for 
 the sins of his people. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 85 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 Mr. Chairman, 
 
 I must be allowed to correct some of the gentle- 
 man's insinuations. I suppose he alludes to Mr. 
 Kneeland. I will take this occasion to say that 
 we have never had any conununication nor con- 
 nexion whatever with Mr. Kneeland, nor any other 
 sceptic. 
 
 I think the gentleman ought to be grateful to Mr. 
 Kinkade, for had it not been for the assistance ren- 
 dered by his book he would have stranded before 
 the close of his last speech. Mr. Kinkade claimed 
 for himself to be half-savage — a soldier — as does my 
 old friend Mr. M'Calla. His doctrine has been dis- 
 countenanced by me and by our friends as gross and 
 absurd. We have always believed that we are for- 
 bidden to fashion God into the image or likeness of 
 any thmg in the heavens above or the earth be- 
 neath, — that he fills immensity — a Spirit, infinite, 
 invisible and unchangeable. The gentleman is so 
 troubled to identify us with Kinkade, that he can't 
 get the book out of his mind. In his account of his 
 recent journey to Texas, he has gone quite as far out 
 of his way to bring in and bespatter some of the 
 clergyman of his own denomination. 
 
 It would be very easy for me to retort on the gen- 
 tleman, and prove that he is an Atheist from his own 
 showing. 
 
86 PLUMMER AND m'cALLa's 
 
 Says one, " This is a very bold assertion !" He 
 positively affirmed in our meeting-house, in referring 
 to the doctrine of Kinkade, that any one who would 
 attach a body, or a human form to God, was an Athe- 
 ist. And yet he said, in the same discom'se, that if 
 any body should deny that God took human nature 
 into union with the divine, so that they became 
 mysteriously united in one person, so that the di- 
 vinity sustained the humanity, in dying for our 
 sins, they would deny the mfinite atonement. Now 
 his creed also declares that the very and eternal God 
 did take upon him man's nature, and all the essential 
 properties and common infirmities thereof, yet with- 
 out sin — so that two whole, perfect and distmct 
 natures, the Godiiead and the manhood, were in- 
 separably joined together in one person, without 
 conversion, composition, or confusion, which person 
 is very God and very man." Thus he declares, 
 that God is "very God" and '''very man," and yet 
 that he v/ho so unites man to God is an Atheist ! 
 Let him now define his position. He will have 
 enough to do to extricate himself from this dilemma, 
 without farther troubling Kuikade. 
 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith says — "The 
 Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are 
 the word of God — the only rule of Faith and obe- 
 dience. The Scriptures make known what God is, 
 the persons in the Godhead, his decrees, and the 
 execution of his decrees, — God is a Spirit, in and of 
 himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and per- 
 fection ; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incom- 
 prehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 87 
 
 all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most 
 merciful and gracious, long-suffermg, and abundant 
 in goodness and truth. There is but one, only, the 
 living and true God. (Agreed.) There be three 
 persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost; and these three are one true eternal 
 God, the same in substance, equal in power and 
 glory ; although distinguished by their personal pro- 
 perties. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, 
 and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to 
 the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the 
 Son, from all eternity." 
 
 The sum of our offending is, that we contend for 
 but one God — and for one Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 the Father in truth and love — begotten, not the Fa- 
 ther he is begotten of. 
 
 Is there a true Christian, one who loves the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who supposes that when we speak of 
 him as the Son of God, he is referred to as one begot- 
 ten as we are begotten? that God is begetting children 
 in any other way than by his word and Spirit ? But 
 here we have " God the Son, and God the Holy 
 Ghost, equal and eternal with God the Father." 
 How many Gods shall we have if we admit there 
 are more eternals than one. By what authority does 
 the gentleman limit the number to three ? If there are 
 three eternals, are there not three divine essences ? 
 The gentleman affirms that there are three divine 
 persons in the divme essence ! Then are there not 
 nine persons in the three divine essences ? If the 
 gentleman can thus manufacture Gods, would he 
 not have made an admirable bishop galloping off to 
 
88 
 
 Synods and Councils, to manufacture Creeds and 
 Confessions of Faith ? 
 
 He has said that the doctrine of the Trinity is in- 
 comprehensible, and yet understood ! Have we not 
 as much benefit from that creed which is incompre- 
 hensible, who have no faith in it, as they have 
 who profess to have all faith in it ? How much 
 can they understand of what they do not mider- 
 stand at all ? 
 
 The gentleman and ourselves stand on very differ- 
 ent gromid. This Bible is our Confession of Faith. 
 We commenced reading it, with prayer, more than 
 thirty years ago. Here is the gentleman's Confes- 
 sion of Faith. But, say you, he subscribes to the 
 Bible also ! Well, then, we are so far agreed ! But 
 he adds tliis Confession of Faith. But, says the gen- 
 tleman, holding up Kinkade and this little sheet, 
 these are "your Confessions of Faith !" This is not 
 true. We are no more accountable for the senti- 
 ments of Kinkade, than he is for those of Mr. Barnes 
 or Professor Stuart. But his Confession is authori- 
 tative, and binding on his brethren. We attach no 
 authority to the private sentiments of any man. This 
 we wish the gentleman to understand, and not set up 
 a man of straw to combat. 
 
 I like the Presbyterians — they are a cool, calcu- 
 lating, deliberating people. They are a learned and 
 pious body, and love to reason. I will do my oppo- 
 nent the justice to say, that he likes discussion, if he 
 can only get things modelled into the right shape — 
 to suit his conscience! 
 
 I was raised in New-England, among Presbyte- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 89 
 
 rians. The time was when they ridiculed revivals. 
 But where do you now find a people more fond of 
 night meetings and reformations? They are also 
 coming over on to more liberal ground. I have fre- 
 quently addressed their congregations, at their own 
 solicitation, and was affectionately requested to re- 
 peat my visit. But this gentleman cannot fellow- 
 ship with Christians, unless they subscribe to his 
 dogmas. I am glad that many of his Trinitarian 
 brethren are getting off the straight -jacket — that they 
 are abandoning the doctrine of reprobation, and in- 
 fant damnation — and the spirit of bigotry and pha- 
 risaical exclusiveness, by which my opponent pre- 
 sumes to send Mr. Pierpont, Mohammedans, and all 
 Anti-Trinitarians, to hell in a batch. 
 
 "Of Qojy—ancl of the Holy Trinity.''— See Vves- 
 byterian Confession of Faith, page 21. Why this dis- 
 tinction? Perhaps the gentleman can tell us. He 
 understands language, and I ask him, is not " of 
 God" one thing, and " of the Holy Trinity" another? 
 I call on the gentleman to explain the distinction. 
 He had better leave Mr. Kinkade, and attend to his 
 own creed, and the Holy Bible. I challenge him to put 
 his finger on the verse in this book, which proves 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not here ! The 
 doctrine cannot be even inferred from the passages 
 produced by the gentleman. We have shown that 
 it comes from the mercenary, canting Bishops of the 
 fourth century, whose God, to judge from the histo- 
 rian, was Lord Beelzebub. 
 
 The Bible says there is but one God, and that 
 God is a Spirit. Where does the gentleman find the 
 8 " 
 
90 
 
 doctrine of a divine essence with three distinct per- 
 sons or beings ? Give us the chapter and verse. The 
 term three persons is not apphed to God in the Scrip- 
 tures. The term person is once apphed to God. Paul 
 says, of the Son, that he is " the brightness of the 
 Father's glory, and the express image oihis person.'^ 
 The person here spoken of is the oie God of the 
 Bible — the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Jesus himself says — " My Father is greater than I — 
 my Father is greater than all." I ask the gentleman 
 to clear up this "mystery." It is not "Human 
 nature," but the Son, that speaks. 
 
 My opponent says, the figure of a man is the best 
 figm-e of the Trinity in all creation. Who believes 
 that Mr. M'Calla is three persons ? If he should be 
 brought into Court to testify, would his body, soul, 
 and spirit, be received as tlu'ee distinct witnesses? 
 Does any man present believe that his wife is three 
 / persons ? Does any woman believe her husband is 
 three persons ? The Scripture saith — " And they 
 twain shall be one." But, from the gentleman's 
 reasoning, they twain must be six ! Does he believe 
 this ? Just as much as those galloping bishops be- 
 lieved in the "mysterious and incomprehensible" 
 doctrine of the Trinity. They may hurl their thun- 
 derbolts at us, for not believing their absurd dogmas, 
 but who have quarrelled more than Trinitarians 
 about this doctrine of the Trinity ? How various are 
 the methods by which they attempt to explain its 
 " mcomprehensibilities." Dr. Emmons, of Massa- 
 chusetts, says, " there is a certain something in the 
 divine nature, which lays a proper foundation for such 
 
 i 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. , 91 
 
 a personal distinction. But what that something is, 
 can neither be described nor conceived. Here Ues 
 the whole mystery of the Trinity.'^ What founda- 
 tion for belief is that which can neither be described 
 nor conceived. Again, the Doctor says — " There is 
 nothing in the whole circle of naturc which bears 
 the least resemblance of three persons in one God.'^ 
 A very just confession. But my opponent sa^^s that 
 man is the best figure of the Trinity in all creation. 
 Again, the Doctor says — "Indeed, there is no word 
 in any language, which can convey, a precise idea 
 of this incomprehensible distinction in the divine na- 
 ture." Is this the reason they have introduced the 
 unscriptural, high-sounding, great swelling words, 
 "co-equal," "co-essential," "co-eternal," "triune," 
 "trinity," and "three-one God," to express the 
 mysterious, incomprehensible, "certain something," 
 which " can neither be described nor conceived ?" 
 The Doctor adds — " It is very immaterial whether 
 we use the name person, or any other name, or a cir- 
 cumlocution instead of a name, in discoursing upon 
 this subject." Would it not be better to let it alone 
 altogether? For all this is adding to God's word. 
 And remember that he who adds to this book is 
 accursed. 
 
 The scripture saith that Jesus is at the right hand 
 of God, that he was raised from the dead, and by 
 God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give 
 repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. I be- 
 lieve this, and yet my opponent says, I am leading 
 you to hell. All this is mere assertion. Give us 
 argument — give us plain Scripture testimony — and 
 
92 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 not skim over creation to rake up Atheists and 
 Fanny Wrights. By this Bible we are governed — 
 this is our creed. Let the gentleman prove to us 
 from this book, that we are in error, and he shall 
 have our everlasting gratitude. 
 Adjourned to 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 At the close of Mr. Plummer's address — 
 
 Mr. Scholejield said he felt it due to himself to 
 take some notice of certain remarks which had been 
 made by Mr. M'Calla, charging him v/ith supporting 
 an Atheist on a particular occasion. The statement 
 of the gentleman was untrue, and calculated to give 
 a false impression. The individual referred to was 
 Mr. Kneeland, who at the time was professedly no 
 more an Atheist than the gentleman himself Since 
 Mr. Kneeland had declared himself to be an Atheist, 
 he had had nothing whatever to do with him. He 
 had a desire to be in fellowship with all good men. 
 
 Mr. M'Calla. May I be allowed to ask the 
 name of that gentleman ? 
 
 Mr. Scholejield. John Scholefield. 
 
 Mr. M'Calla. I would ask this audience if 1 
 have referred to any JNIr. Scholefield ? 
 
 Mr. Plummer said the gentleman had referred to 
 some person brought here, as having supported an 
 Atheist on a former occasion. The allusion of the 
 gentleman was well understood. His manner of 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 93 
 
 making the insinuation, as well as his present quib- 
 ble, are both characteristic. 
 
 Mr. Chas. H. Plmnmer here addressed the au- 
 dience, and stated, that if any person wished to 
 obtain a condensed work on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, it could be obtained at the desk gratis, or 
 for the small sum of Q^ cents. The pamphlet ori- 
 ginated in this manner: — Some ten years since, in a 
 Theological Debating Society in Philadelphia, ]Mr. 
 M'Calla challenged Mr. Plummer to a discussion on 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, which Mr. Plummer ac- 
 cepted, and agreed to meet him before the society at 
 the following meeting. At the appointed time Mr. 
 Plummer attended, prepared for the discussion, but 
 Mr. M'Calla was not forthcoming. He delivered 
 his speech and threw it on the table for a reply. No 
 one attempted to answer his arguments, and the 
 speech was subsequently printed at the request of 
 those who heard it. Mr. M'Calla was thus the 
 cause of the publication, as he is of the present dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Mr, Hall expressed his disapprobation of the 
 remarks made by the last mentioned gentleman. He 
 thought his course in the highest degree censurable, 
 and hoped the citizens of Delaware county would 
 maintain their dignity, and discountenance any thing 
 which was calculated to create an midue bias in 
 their minds in favor of either of the disputants. He 
 trusted nothing would transpire to interrupt the dis- 
 cussion, or excite feelings which might end in blood- 
 shed. 
 
94 PLUMMER AND m'c ALLANS 
 
 Wednesday, 1 P. M. 
 MR. M^CALLA. 
 
 In my former address I intimated that the Unita- 
 rians rallied in Philadelphia under some one not 
 mentioned. I also intimated that some one had 
 been brought here, who, on a former occasion, had 
 countenanced an Atheist. No one, however, had a 
 right to take my remarks to himself, miless he con- 
 sidered them applicable. I said that I had always 
 believed Mr. Kneeland to be an Atheist. The gentle- 
 man knew that he was an Atheist just as well before 
 as after he openly declared his Atheistical doctrines. 
 I like to see a man stick to a friend in adversity, as 
 well as in prosperity. I always make it a matter of 
 principle to be faitliful to a friend. In a crowd, if I 
 see a man abused, and without friends, I always feel 
 it my duty to be his friend. Such are ever the feel- 
 ings of a Kentuckian. 
 
 The truth is, Mr. Kneeland is just as good a man 
 now, as he was before he embraced the doctrines of 
 Fanny Wright. Mr. Kinkade also has been put 
 down ; but for a long time the saddle-bags of his 
 brother Unitarians were filled with this book. It 
 was annomiced here to-day, that if any one wished 
 to see Trinitarianism exposed, he had only to come 
 forward and pay 6i cents ! But of Mr. Kinkade's 
 book whole saddle-bag loads were distributed at one 
 dollar each ! 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 95 
 
 It must have been a patent machine, by which my 
 opponent was able to prove me an Atheist, — Chris- 
 tians were so called in the early ages of the Church. 
 Polycarp was denounced as an Atheist, because he 
 would not bow down to Pagan deities. The cry of 
 the multitude was — " This is the doctor of Asia — 
 the father of the Christians — the subverter of our 
 Gods !'' They promised that if he would say, ^'Away 
 with the the Atheists !" (referrmg to the Pagans) his 
 life should be spared. But '-Away with the Athe- 
 ists'' did not satisfy them, and he was put to death ! 
 What he said of the worshippers of material deities 
 then, I say now, — they are Atheists, even if they call 
 themselves Christians, as Mr. Kinkade and my op- 
 ponent do. 
 
 It is astonishing how anxious these Chynstians 
 are to commune with Atheists. My opponent, I mi- 
 derstand, talks about revivals to the Presbyterians, 
 — ^baptism to the Baptists, — and it is Amen ! when 
 he gets among the Methodists. Among the Qua- 
 kers, I am told, he sometimes wears a broader brim 
 than this old white hat of mine, which v/as presented 
 to me on the Brassos river, in Texas. The real fol- 
 lower of Jesus, likes to keep a conscience void of 
 offence. I would rather be led to the scaffold than 
 give the right hand of fellowship to the enemies of 
 my Divine Master. 
 
 We were yesterday told by my opponent, that he 
 had been frequently invited into the pulpits of Pres- 
 byterians. To-day the mystery is explained — 
 ^^ Many Presbyterians in New England invited him 
 into their pulpits, and affectionately solicited a repe- 
 
96 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 tition of his visit." These very Presbyterians have 
 since become Unitarians, and denied the God who 
 bought them. It was just what he had a right to 
 expect from such abominable creatures. 
 
 My opponent has told you that I have declared 
 " the figure of a man to be the best figure in creation 
 of the Trinity." At another time he said that I de- 
 clared "the figure of a man to be the h^sX proof in 
 creation of the Trinity;" — ^thus trying to make me 
 substitute his human god for the true God, and sub- 
 stitute the figure of a man for that proof which 
 infallible inspiration affords. I never said that the 
 figure of a man was a figure of the Trinity, nor 
 that it was a proof of the Trinity. I have always 
 alleged, that the inspired Scriptures were the real 
 proof of the Trinity, and have only adduced the 
 mysterious complicated human constitution as an 
 illustration of the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity 
 in this respect, that the existence of two beings, a 
 material and immaterial, in one human person, was 
 to me incomprehensible, as the strange mysterious 
 union of three Divine persons in one Divine essence, 
 appears to me incomprehensible. 
 
 I have said that we camiot fully comprehend the 
 doctrine of three persons in the Divine essence, but 
 that we can understand its general outlines. By the 
 word person, used in describing the distinctions of 
 the Godhead, Trinitarians do not mean what is 
 usually meant when it is applied to other things. 
 They do not mean a totally separate identity of 
 essence, as we do when we say, my friend is one 
 person and I am another. Such a separate identity, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 97 
 
 possessed of all the independent powers of con- 
 sciousness, judging and willing, Avould make three 
 different minds or beings; and if each were God, 
 there would undoubtedly be three Gods! Trini- 
 tarians believe in one God — that this one Deity, or 
 Godhead, exists by a distinction of what may be 
 called persons — that these persons are the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, a threefold distinction, and 
 therefore by us called Trinity — and that each of 
 these persons, though possessing some properties 
 which do not belong to the others, nevertheless truly 
 and properly possesses the eternal and supreme nature 
 of God, the one as much as the other. These per- 
 sons, therefore, though divine, are not other Gods, 
 nor does such a distinction involve any known con- 
 tradiction. 
 
 My opponent, like all the Unitarians, and Liberal- 
 ists in religion, appears to think himself possessed 
 of reason in a very exalted and infallible form. He 
 has only to say that a thing is inconsistent with his 
 reason, and then it must be wrong of course, and 
 Voltaire has only to say, or Mr. Kneeland has only 
 to say, that a thing is inconsistent with his reason, 
 and it has to be stricken out of his creed. From 
 such men. Christians diifer much concerning the 
 province of reason. The reason of fallen man is cor- 
 rupt, depraved and dark, and this may account, in 
 some measure, for the mnumerable and diametrical 
 contradictions which we find between the reason of 
 one man and the reason of another. Feeling the 
 infinite inferiority of oiu- fallen reason to the perfect 
 wisdom of our Creator, Christians do not like to con- 
 
 9 
 
98 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 tradict him, nor bring their reason into competition 
 with his. If they are enabled, by a clear and correct 
 exercise of their reason, to ascertain that the Scrip- 
 tures were written by the God of truth, their reason 
 is not allowed to contradict one sentence of his word, 
 but only to ascertain his meaning, taking it for 
 granted that if we have differed from him in opinion, 
 we must now conform our opinion to his, and not 
 expect him to surrender his to ours. 
 
 Before revelation was completed, God gave some 
 light by the works of creation, but Pagans and coun- 
 terfeit Christians alike would be wise above what 
 is written. Paul notices such in Romans i. 22, 23 — 
 " Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, 
 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into 
 an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds 
 and four-footed beasts and creeping things." My op- 
 ponent's Christians have already changed the glory 
 of the incorruptible God into the image, the body, 
 parts and passions of corruptible man. The next 
 lesson of course will lead them to the four-footed 
 beasts and creeping things. But, say they, " we dis- 
 card Mr. Kinkade — his doctrines are becoming un- 
 popular !^^ and, say they, "he was no better than 
 an old hunter, any how !" Is this the spirit of 
 Christianity, to do homage to a man while his books 
 will sell rapidly at a dollar a piece, and then, when 
 he falls, and the Pagan corruption of his book be- 
 comes manifest, to cast him off with contempt as an 
 old hunter, because he is mipopular ? This is the 
 very spirit which Paganism exhibited from the in- 
 fancy of Christianity. One reason given by Celsus, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 99 
 
 in the second century, for his opposition, was that 
 instead of flattermg the wealthy and philosophical 
 world, Christianity opened the door of heaven to the 
 poor and unlearned, whom he chose to call weavers 
 and shoemakers. If Mr. Kuikade be an old hunter, 
 it is probable that he formed the pattern for the old 
 man whom he represents as God. It is probable 
 that, like the old hmiter, Alexander the Great, he 
 wished to be deified, and worshipped after his death ; 
 but it seems that he has now become less popular, 
 and some other old man must mount the Unitarian 
 throne, who is not a hunter, iveaver or shoemaker ! 
 But if such characters are to be despised, will it 
 operate favorably to my opponent and his friends 1: 
 
 If the created reason were equal to the Divine 
 reason, we should have no mysteries. These Pagan 
 "Christians'^ do not admit that religion has any 
 mystery, even the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 
 This is a sort of wisdom which the Jews had very 
 abundantly before the coming of Christ, and in the 
 light of the New Testament it appears perfect folly. 
 To them the Messiah of the Old Testament prophe- 
 cies was a profomid mystery, though their pride 
 would not acknowledge it. Not recognising the divi- 
 nity and humanity in the iSIessiah of the inspired 
 prophets, they could not believe that one and the 
 same person was to be both an immolated victim 
 and an immortal victor. So the Materialist, not 
 recognising the union of a material body with an 
 immaterial spirit, in the human constitution, cannot 
 believe that one and the same person is both mortal 
 and immortal. 
 
100 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 
 Mr. Chairmariy 
 
 I regret that any thing has occured to create un- 
 pleasant feeling, or to excite apprehensions that this 
 discussion might end unpleasantly. I hope that 
 strength will be afforded me to disarm myself of all 
 disposition to indulge in a spirit of bitterness, or de- 
 sire of vengeance, on those whom I may consider in 
 error. We can neither make nor alter facts, — we 
 can only come to the knowledge of them. He who 
 is so fortunate as to come to a knowledge of the 
 truth, should be the last to wish to take vengeance 
 on those who labor in ignorance, darkness, and 
 error. Truth will remain eternal. We may be mis- 
 taken — God cannot. Nor would we render railing 
 for railing. There is no fear but God will render, in 
 due season, all the punishment necessary. When 
 Michael disputed with the devil about the body of 
 Moses, he dm-st not give him a railing accusation, but 
 said, the Lord rebuke thee. 
 
 The gentleman has again associated my name with 
 that of Mr. Kneeland. I will take this opportunity to 
 say again, that I have never had the slightest con- 
 nexion with Mr. Kneeland. I am charged with 
 being his friend. I have met Mr. Kneeland as an 
 opponent in discussion, and so have Presbyterians. 
 There is not a person present who can justify the 
 gentleman's false insinuations. We have also been 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 101 
 
 accused of deserting Mr. Kinkade in adversity. But, 
 I repeat, we have nothing to do with Mr. Kinkade in 
 this discussion. We have never circulated his book, 
 nor advocated his doctrine. He also classes me with 
 Fanny Wright and with IVIr. Campbell. Mr. Camp- 
 bell ranks high for talents and piety. His debate 
 with Robert Owen is in the hands of Presbyterians 
 and other Trinitarians, and is highly approved. Owen 
 challenged Campbell to a discussion on the inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures. Mr. Campbell met him, and 
 gave his doctrines to the four winds. 
 
 The gentleman also ranks us with Charming, 
 Pierpont and Priestley. He is attaching to us alto- 
 gether too much importance. But we look only to 
 the Bible, and take nothing second hand. — When we 
 have doubts, we always consult that glorious book 
 of inspiration. 
 
 The gentleman is mistaken in another respect. I 
 did not call him an Atheist. I only inferred it from 
 his own showmg. I do not wish to be miderstood 
 as chargmg either that gentleman or any other Pres- 
 byterian with Atheism. I wish only to touch on 
 doctrmes, without impugning the motives or calling 
 in question the sincerity of any man. God alone 
 must judge in this respect. I did prove, by argument 
 unanswered, that he had, by his own reasonmg, con- 
 victed himself of Atheism. — I asked him to clear his 
 skirts of the implication. He pointed to a man 
 standing at the stove, and declared him to be the 
 "best figure in creation of the Trinity." If these 
 were not his words, I stand corrected ; but my state- 
 ment is corroborated by the whole congregation. 
 
102 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith was said by 
 the gentleman to be based on the Scriptures. The 
 Confession of Faith says that, "under the name of 
 Scripture, or the word of God written, are now con- 
 tained aU the books of the Old and New Testament 
 — all of which are given by mspiration of God, to 
 be the rule of Faith and life" — that "the whole 
 council of God, concerning all things necessary for 
 his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is 
 either expressly set down m Scriptm-e, or by good 
 and necessary consequence may be deduced from 
 Scripture ; unto which nothhig at any time is to be 
 added, whether by new i^evelations of the Spirit or 
 traditions of men,'''' Amen! To this do we most 
 heartily subscribe. And yet this entire Confession 
 of Faith has been added. Why are these 400 pages 
 added to the Scriptiu'es? Nothmg shall at any time 
 be added. I hope the doctrine that the Scriptures 
 are all-sufficient will prevail among Presbyterians, 
 not because it is the doctrine of the Confession of 
 Faith, but of the Scriptures themselves. But if you 
 will contend for this addition, mind you don't get 
 the curse. "If any man shall add unto these things, 
 God shall add mito him the plagues that are written 
 in the book." — Nothing is to be added, "whether 
 by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of 
 menJ^ "We wish not to grapple with the traditions 
 of men. Let the gentleman cease sending me and 
 my friends to hell, and confine himself to the Scrip- 
 tures. We wish to grapple with him upon the word 
 of God. 
 
 "AU things in Scriptiu-e are not alike plain in 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 103 
 
 themselves, (says the Confession of Faith) nor alike 
 clear unto all; yet these things which are necessary 
 to be known, believed and observed, for salvation, 
 are so clearly propounded and opened in some place 
 of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but 
 the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, 
 may attain unto a sufficient miderstanding of them." 
 I have been laboring for years with ordinary means. 
 I have endeavored to make the word of God ^"a 
 lamp to my feet, and a light mito my path." But 
 if the learned gentleman can aid us in the know- 
 ledge of this book, we shall be happy to be enlight- 
 ened by him. 
 
 Again, the Confession says, ^' The infallible rule of 
 interpretation of Scriptm-e is the Scripture itself; 
 and therefore, when there is a question about the 
 true and full sense of any Scriptm-e, (which is not 
 manifold but one) it may be searched and known 
 by other places that speak more clearly. The 
 Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of re- 
 ligion are to be determined, and all decrees of coim- 
 cils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, 
 and private Spirits, are to be examined, and in 
 whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but 
 the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." In all 
 this I agree most heartily. Presbyterians and Chris- 
 tians should all lay this book aside, and learn what 
 the will of God is from his infallible and eternal 
 word, the Holy Scriptures. For twenty -five years 
 have I preached this word in the comities of Phila- 
 delphia, Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery, and if 
 any mortal can say I have ever avowed other than 
 
104 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 these sentiments^ let me be reproached as a hypo- 
 crite. 
 
 The gentleman says I have gone romid to create 
 sympathy among the Quakers or Friends. When- 
 ever I have visited them, I have endeavored to do 
 my duty conscientiously. But that I have ever 
 sought sympathy by compromising my faith in this 
 Holy Creed — this word of God — I utterly deny. I 
 have spoken in some twenty-five of their houses, 
 and have always been greeted aifectionately, and 
 with an m-gent request to visit them again. I have 
 never said split — ^have never promoted disunion 
 among them. But I have said to both parties, 
 " Open yom big house — call your big men — let the 
 matter be discussed — and after all have been heard, 
 let the majority decide and the minority submit." 
 
 I have rejoiced to see Presbyterians so free for 
 discussion. They have split on their Creed — some 
 httle knotty difficulty — and not on the word of God. 
 There is nothing in the word of God which autho- 
 rises Christians to split into sects and parties. If we 
 confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, deal 
 justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, 
 are we to be denounced as infidels and heretics, and 
 to be damned because we cannot understand knotty 
 doctrines ? If others will not fellowship with me, 
 they cannot deprive me of an approving conscience 
 before God. I am going down into the grave in a 
 few days. My hope is in God — I seek not for popu- 
 larity among men, and wish no change of faith. 
 And shall I be accused of deserting the word of 
 God, creeping after sects, and consorting with Athe- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 105 
 
 ists ? It would be about as reasonable to call me an 
 Atheist as to say, "Away with him — crucify him, — 
 he teacheth contrary to our customs!" 
 
 The gentleman has quoted the text, " I and my 
 Father are One," (John x. 30,) to prove that Jesus 
 is the Supreme, eternal God ! If these are one, how 
 can that be ? Does he not speak of the Father as 
 distinct from himself, and himself as distinct from 
 the Father, as "/ and 7ny Father are one?" He 
 does not say that these are one person, nor three per- 
 sons. There is not an expression of this kind in the 
 book of God. And yet the gentleman has quoted 
 this language as conclusive proof that the Father and 
 Son are one God. But let us examine this text in 
 connexion with the rest of the paragraph. " Then 
 came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, 
 How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If thou be 
 the Christ — [not if thou he the Jehovah!^ — tell us 
 plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye 
 believed not. The works that I do in my Father's 
 name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe 
 not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto 
 you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, 
 and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal 
 life, and they shall never perish. Neither shall any 
 man pluck them out of my hand." 
 
 Here let it be distinctly observed, that the object 
 of Christ is, to save these sheep. And if not able 
 himself to save them, he adds : 
 
 " My Father, which gave them me is greater than 
 all : and none is able to pluck them out of my Fa- 
 ther's hand. I and my Father are one." 
 
106 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 They are one in design or purpose to save these 
 sheep. That this is the true meaning of the lan- 
 guage, can be shown from the language of Christ 
 himself In the 17th Chapter of John, Christ says, — 
 "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those 
 whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as 
 we are. The glory which thou hast given me, I have 
 given them, that they may he one, even as we are 
 one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be 
 made perfect m one/^ Christ is here praying for the 
 apostles. Can it be supposed that his meaning was 
 that they should all become one apostle, and that 
 one, Chy'ist himself? Such an explanation would be 
 just as plausible as the gentleman's explanation of 
 the passage, " I and my Father are one.'' The evi- 
 dent object of the passage was, that they should be 
 one in mind and effort, as he and the Father were 
 one. Christ adds, — " Neither pray I for these alone, 
 but them also which shall believe on me, through 
 their word, that they all may be one, as thou Father, 
 art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one 
 in us, that the world may believe that thou hast 
 sent me." Thus it is clear, that the oneness spoken 
 of in the passage quoted by the gentleman, as exist- 
 ing between the Father and the Son, is the same one- 
 ness which Christ prays unto his Father may exist 
 among the apostles, and also in the whole church. 
 
 We will now go back to the 10th of John: "I 
 and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up 
 stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, many 
 good works have I shown unto you from my Fa- 
 ther ; [not his own works, but his Father^ s ;] for 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 107 
 
 which of these do you stone me ? The Jews an- 
 swered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee 
 not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being 
 a man, makest thyself God. [Did they speak the 
 truth ? No. They charged him falsely.] Jesus an- 
 swered them. Is it not written m yom' law, I said 
 ye are Gods ? If he called them Gods, imto whom 
 the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be 
 broken, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanc- 
 tified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; 
 because I said, I am the Son of God.^' 
 
 Jesus Christ never said that he was God himself, 
 but uniformly that he was the Son of God — the sanc- 
 tified and sent of the Father. The Jews accused 
 him of making himself God, but he denied it. The 
 gentleman now brings the same accusation — that 
 " he maketh himself one with the Father." Can the 
 gentleman and his wife be called one person or being, 
 because it is said, " they twain shall be one." No. 
 Paul says — " I have planted, Apollos watered. Now 
 he that planteth and he that watereth are one" — not 
 one apostle, but one in design that the plant might 
 grow and flourish. 
 
lOS PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 I cannot consent to receive my creed from those 
 who adopt the belief that the Supreme Almighty 
 God is a material being. 
 
 My opponent calls me an Atheist in one speech, 
 and in the next declares that he only called me so 
 from my own showing. He caught up his notes, 
 with an air of exultation, and declared that I had 
 said, the best figure of the Trinity m creation, was 
 the figure of a man. Now the best of proof can be 
 produced, to show that I made no such statement. 
 I am always very cautious about committing myself 
 to any Reporter. I never like to put myself in the 
 power of any man ; for he who could thus represent 
 my language, could report me to the gallows in 
 three minutes. 
 
 My opponent says, " Why do they add these four 
 hundred pages to the Bible ?'^ I say, "Why do 
 they add this abommable, filthy little pamphlet to 
 the Bible ?" We do not refer to the Confession of 
 Faith to prove our doctrines. If I were to hear it 
 done by a Presbyterian clergyman, I should take 
 my hat and walk out. " That man," I should say, 
 " is not in his senses !'' 
 
 But let us refer to that dear Saviour, of whose 
 divuiity I love to talk. I hope to speak of it till 
 death, and in the realms of glory. It makes my 
 heart warm within me, to speak of him instead of 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 109 
 
 the old hunter's divinity — not a bit better than Jug- 
 gernaut ! 
 
 Jesus says, " I am the root and the offspring of 
 David." (Rev. xxii. 16.) This is as much as to 
 say that he is both the Father and the Son of David. 
 On this subject our Saviour asked the Jewish bre- 
 thren of my opponent a question, which it is hard to 
 answer consistently, without the doctrine of two na- 
 tures." "If David call him Lord, how is he his 
 Son ?" To us it is plain, that Jesus is David's Lord 
 and Father, according to the divine nature, and he 
 is his Son according to the human nature. With- 
 out such an interpretation, the Bible could not be 
 defended from the charge of contradiction. Now 
 we can easily understand in what sense Christ says, 
 at one time, « My Father is greater than I." (John 
 xiv. 28.) At another time, " I and my Father are 
 one, (John x. 30,) and, " He thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God." (Phil. ii. 6.) The Father 
 is greater than he, and yet he is equal with the Fa- 
 ther ! How can these things be without two na- 
 tures ? Christ of himself can do nothing, (John v. 
 30,) yet he can do all things, even the works of crea- 
 tion, providence, redemption, resurrection, and judg- 
 ment. At one time the Son appears deficient in 
 knowledge, (Mark xiii. 32,) yet at another he evi- 
 dently knows all things. (John xvi. 30.) At one 
 time we find that the counsel of the Father appoints 
 to him a kingdom, (Luke xxii. 29,) yet again we 
 find that he was with the Father in that counsel. 
 (Prov. viii. 27, 30.) At one time we are told that 
 he is an angel; but at another, that he took not 
 10 
 
110 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 upon him the nature of angels but the seed of Abra- 
 ham, a httle lower than the angels. At one time 
 the Scriptures ascribe to him body and parts, the 
 spirit and passions, the wants and sufferings of real 
 human nature ; at another, they ascribe to him all 
 the names, titles and attributes of the Supreme and 
 Eternal God. 
 
 Our question is not as to a plurality of Gods, but 
 of persons in the Divine essence. My opponent has 
 called for Scripture, and we will now give him 
 Scripture enough. 
 
 Genesis i. 26 — " And God said, let us make man 
 in our own image. '^ Is this God that is speaking, 
 and is there no plurality here ? In the original, the 
 name of God (Ehhim) and the verb to make, are 
 both in the plural. It is contended, by some com- 
 mentators, that this is only a figurative way of speak- 
 ing, to denote the dignity of God, and not to denote 
 a plurality of persons in God. My opponent will 
 tell you that kings and editors speak in the same 
 style. But was Moses acquainted with editors? 
 Besides, language changes, and Queen Victoria now 
 says /. Editors, therefore, will probably soon adopt 
 the same form of expression. — " God said, let us 
 make man in ou?' image, after our likeness." Here 
 is a plurality, though not Mr. Kinkade's plurality — 
 the likeness of God, but not of an old hunter ! — If 
 this were God's mode of speaking of himself, merely 
 for dignity's sake, then might it have been expected 
 that he would always have used this form. It is ob- 
 vious, however, that the plural is not always used, 
 nor generally. There are innumerable other pas- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. Ill 
 
 sages where the smgular is used. Sometunes, indeed, 
 the name of God is plural, and the verb connected 
 with it smgular, as if to express unity of action, com- 
 bined with plurality of persons. Sometimes both are 
 smgular, and sometimes both are plural. Upon the 
 supposition of a distinction in the Godhead, this is 
 perfectly explainable ; but it is not explamable on 
 a.ny other supposition, nor can we believe that, with- 
 out some special reason for it, God would have used 
 such a form of expression in his word. Eben Ezra, 
 a Jewish writer, declares expressly that the royal 
 idiom among men, is the invention of pride, and in- 
 troduced long after the creation. 
 
 Genesis iii. 22 — " And the Lord God said, behold 
 the man has become like, one of usJ' Was it God 
 who said this ? — " One of us.'' If only us, it would 
 mean a plurality ; but when the language is, 07ie of 
 us, to doubt a plurality is preposterous. 
 
 Genesis xi. 6, 7. — " And the Lord said, let us go 
 down and there [Hebrew let us] confomid their lan- 
 guage." Here also a plurality is apparent. 
 
 Daniel iv. 24, 26 — " The most High, they com- 
 manded to leave the stump of the tree roots in the 
 earth." 
 
 In the 1 3th verse of this chapter, we read of only 
 one watcher or holy one, but here the number is 
 very remarkably changed from he said to they com- 
 manded. The words of the curse upon Nebuchad- 
 nezar were pronounced by a watcher and an holy 
 one, in the singular, nevertheless at the close of the 
 speech it is declared to be by the decree of the 
 watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy 
 
112 ^LtriyfMER AND m'calla's 
 
 ones ! — Tlie change of these verbs and noiins from 
 the smgular to the plural, is a case to which there is 
 no parallel in any language, and can be reconcil- 
 able only upon the principle that there is a plurality 
 of persons in a unity of essence. 
 
 Psalm Ixxviii. 56 — " They tempted and provoked 
 the Most High God.'' 
 
 1 Corinthians x. 9 — " Neither let us tempt Christ, 
 as some of them also tempted.'' In the former pas- 
 sage the person tempted is called the Most High, 
 and in the latter the apostle calls the same person 
 Christ. — Christ therefore must be the Most High. 
 
 Daniel v. 18, 20— -"The Most High God gave 
 (plural) to Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom and majesty 
 and glory and honor. And they took his glory from 
 him/^ The word they here is a plain relation to 
 the Most High God. It was a supernatural act of 
 the Most High God that took away the glory of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, but the passage clearly shows a 
 plurality of persons. 
 
 Isaiah xxxiv. 16 — " Seek ye out of the book of the 
 Lord, and read — ^for my mouth it hath commanded, 
 and his Spirit it hath gathered them." — Language 
 which all Trinitarians will understand. 
 
 Isaiah xlviii. 16 — "And now the Lord God and 
 His Spirit hath sent me." Here is a plurality, and 
 the person speaking is Christ. 
 
 Psalm xxxiii. 6 — " By the word of the Lord were 
 the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the 
 breath [Hebrew, Spirit] of his mouth." The breath 
 of the Lord here undoubtedly means the third per- 
 son in the Trinity. Our Savior communicated the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 113 
 
 Holy Spirit to his disciples by breathing upon thein, 
 *^ a demonstration that Clirist, who, as a ])e7'son, is the 
 Word of the Lord, is, in nature^ the Lord himself; 
 because the Spirit or breath of the Almighty, is also 
 the breath of Christ/' 
 
 John iii. 11 — "We speak that ice do know, and 
 testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our 
 witness.''— John viii. 17, IS. " The testimony of two 
 men is true. / ajn one that bear witness of myself, 
 and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." 
 Our blessed Saviour, in these passages, when speak- 
 ing of himself, uses the singular pronoun — when 
 speaking of the testimony, the plural. "We speak 
 that ive do know, and testify that ive have seen, and 
 ye receive not our witness," can be no other than 
 the witness of the Trinity ; for it is added, " no man 
 hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came 
 down from heaven" — therefore "no man could join 
 with Christ in revealing the things of heaven to us." 
 
 Again, 1 John v. 7 — "For there be Mree that 
 bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Ghost, and these three are o?2e." We shall 
 be told that there has been much disputing about 
 this text, but I need not go into an elaborate argu- 
 ment to prove its authenticity. All that it contams 
 with regard to the Trinity, and their divine testimony, 
 is abundantly proved by other passages. 
 
 Matthew xxviii. 19 — "Baptising them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost.^' Three persons, but one Divme 
 essence. 
 
 2 Corinthians xiii. 14. "The Grace of our Lord 
 10* 
 
114 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com- 
 munion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." I do 
 not see that ever it was prayed that the grace of a 
 created being might be with us ! 
 
 Numbers vi. 22 — 27. — "And the Lord spake mito 
 Moses saying, Speak unto Aaron and his sons saying, 
 on this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, say- 
 ing mito them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee : 
 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be 
 gracious unto thee : The Lord lift up his counte- 
 nance upon thee, and give thee peace." In this 
 blessing, with which the High Priest was commanded 
 to bless the children of Israel, the name of the Lord 
 is repeated three times. Parallel to this is the form 
 of Christian baptism, "wherein the three personal 
 terms of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not repre- 
 sented as so many different names, but as one name 
 — the one divme nature of God, being no more di- 
 vided by these three, than by the single name Lord, 
 or Jehovah, thrice repeated." The contents of the 
 three articles will be found to correspond respec- 
 tively with the Grace, Mercy and Peace of the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. To show that this is 
 the consistent mterpretation, it is added — " And they 
 shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and 
 I will bless them." The same God puts his Triune 
 name upon his children now, when they are bap- 
 tized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 Isaiah vi. 3 — " One (seraph) cried unto another, 
 Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, the whole 
 earth is full of his glory." Here the perfect number 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 113 
 
 of the Trinity is taken to declare the manifold holi- 
 ness of God ; and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 are thus recognized in the solemn declaration of 
 worship. 
 
 Revelations iv. 8 — Living creatures " rest not 
 day and night, saying. Holy, holy, holy, * * ^ 
 * * * which tvas, and is, and is to comeJ^^ 
 
116 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 Mr, Chairman, 
 
 The gentleman has closed with Revelations, but 
 he appeared to stagger. Why not bring out the 
 whole of the text, — " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God 
 .mmightyr' Lord of Hosts, and Lord God Al- 
 mighty, are expressions never addressed to Jesus 
 Christ, in the Scriptures. The gentleman says the 
 word of God is his standard of faith and practice. 
 If so, we are agreed. Mr. Wesley also says, that 
 <^ the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are 
 the only suiRcient rule of faith and practice, and 
 whatsoever is not read therein, and proved thereby, 
 is not to be received as an article of faith." And 
 3^et Mr. Vv esley adds a book of faith and discipline, 
 as large as the New Testament. If the word of God 
 is their standard of faith and practice, then why do 
 they want these Creeds and Confessions at all ? Why 
 pei-petuate the absurdities of the fourth and fifth 
 centuries ? Why violate all mathematical rules, and 
 pervert the plain meaning of Scripture, by saying 
 three times one of the same substance, power and 
 eternity, are but one ? If a man be confined m a 
 mad-house for saying once one is two, what should 
 be the fate of him who says that three times one is 
 but one, or that once one is three ? 
 
 But let us come to the book of God. The gentle- 
 man has not quoted a single text that proves his doc- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 117 
 
 trine. If the word of God contains his doctrine, 
 should it not be clearly and distinctly expressed ? 
 Would its great Author be likely to leave a question 
 like this in doubt and uncertainty ? And yet did 
 Moses ever say that Jehovah existed in three distinct 
 persons ? Did ever one of the Prophets say that there 
 were three persons in the Divine essence ? Why 
 did not John say, I have come to prepare the way 
 for you to receive the Trinity ? Why was not Ga- 
 briel instructed to say, that holy thing which shall be 
 born of thee shall be one of the Holy three, or the 
 Highest himself, instead of the Son of the Highest ? 
 There are several ways — some eight or ten — by 
 which Trinitarians explain this doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity. Although the doctrine of three persons in the 
 Divine essence, is a leading article in their creeds, 
 there are but few who acknowledge three co-equal, 
 co-eternal persons, each properly and really God. 
 They differ widely among themselves on the sub- 
 ject. Some teach that there are three persons in 
 the Godhead, and others that God has a trinity of 
 offices. Some contend for three modes of existence, 
 and others a trinity of attributes. There are others 
 again, who deny that there are, in the true sense of 
 the word, three persons in God, and yet contend for 
 three distinctions in Deity. Some others openly 
 deny that there are three co-eternal, self-existent 
 persons, each of whom is God in the highest sense of 
 the word, but contend for a trinity of faculties in the 
 Almighty. Others again say that by Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, they mean only three operations 
 of the Divine Being — others, that by three persons, 
 
118 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 they mean three relations in Deity— and yet others, 
 that all we should understand by Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, is three manifestations of God to his 
 creatures. 
 
 Few of these, it is true, dare come forward and 
 openly state their views of the doctrine. By so do- 
 ing, they would soon get at loggerheads. They, 
 therefore, wrap it up in incomprehensibilities. Why 
 not let alone whatever is incomprehensible in the 
 Bible, and never refer to, or dispute about any pas- 
 sage which is not clearly expressed, and can not be 
 understood? 
 
 The gentleman has quoted a number of passages, 
 which he would have you believe prove his doctrine. 
 The most important of these is — " Let us make man 
 in our own image." The Father and Son, he con- 
 tends, ai*e here speaking, and he, therefore, argues 
 the existence of three persons in the Divine Essence. 
 
 The gentleman, in quoting the passage, has re- 
 ferred to the practice of using the plural pronoun. 
 But Queen Victoria says /, and, therefore, he argues 
 that, " Let us make man," could not have been a 
 figurative way of speaking, but must refer only to 
 an act of the Godhead. But does that us prove 
 that there were three distinct persons or Creators ? 
 Or if Mree, why not three or four thousand? Give 
 us the passage that limits the number to three. Why 
 not two, or two thousand? He says that the Bible is 
 filled with proof of his doctrine. Then let him show it. 
 
 When a doubtful passage occurs, ought it not to 
 be received with caution, unless explained by other 
 passages which are clear and explicit? Among 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 119 
 
 civilians and lawyers it is an established principle 
 of construction, where words of doubtful meaning 
 occur, in a last will and testament, that one part is 
 to be explained by another, and the sense of the 
 testator is to be collected from an impartial view of 
 the whole instrument. 
 
 Now Moses has said, "Let us make man,'' but 
 let us compare these words of Moses with the rest 
 of his writings, and learn his meaning from a just 
 view of the whole. In the very next verse to this 
 passage, speaking of the same character, he repeat- 
 edly uses the singular pronoun. — In substituting the 
 pronoun for the names God, Lord, &c., he has made 
 use of the singular more than a hundred times to 
 one of the plural. If in a will a word should occur 
 twenty-five times in the singular and only once in 
 the plural, would the true interpretation be consi- 
 dered difficult ? Moses has said, " Thou shalt have 
 no other Gods before wze" — not even a second nor 
 third Eternal. The Scripture says — ^^God is the 
 Creator of all things, and his glory he will not give 
 to another. ^^ Paul says '^one God has created us," 
 and not tivo, Malachi says, " One God has created 
 us^^ — not three. But to put this matter beyond dis- 
 pute we will refer you to Jesus Christ himself. 
 Jesus says, " God created man in his own image, in 
 the image of God created he him, male and female 
 created he them," thus, in this passage, rendering the 
 pronoun in the singular number. Why, then, if there 
 be a pliuality of Creators, does the Son of God render 
 this word in the singular ? Let the gentleman answer. 
 
 The gentleman attaches much importance to the 
 
120 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 passage — ^^ God created all things by his Word.'' 
 The passage itself says, God created all things by 
 his word. It is also said that he has created all 
 things by his wisdom, power, and spirit; and that 
 he created all tilings by and for his Son, Jesus Cln-ist. 
 It is therefore evident that God himself is the Creator. 
 
 The gentleman also quotes Genesis i. 2 — "The 
 Spirit of the Lord moved on the face of the waters." 
 Does that mean, a person, or another being, distinct 
 from God ? Is the spirit of man distinct from man 
 himself? Does not the miiform language of Scrip- 
 ture convey a different idea ? 1 Corinthians ii. 11, it 
 is said, " The things of God knoweth no one, but the 
 Spirit of God." Agam, Psalm cxxxix. 7 — "Whi- 
 ther shall I go from thy Spirit?" Do these not mean 
 God himself, for it is added, " If I ascend up into 
 heaven thou art there." Again, " They rebelled and 
 vexed his Holy Spirit f^ of which the Lord says — • 
 "How long will this people provoke me .?" Is it not 
 evident, therefore, that they "tempted and provoked 
 the Most High?'' 
 
 Agam, the gentleman quotes John viii. 17, IS — 
 " The testimony of two men is true. I am one that 
 bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me 
 beareth witness of me." Here the gentleman is 
 also unfortunate in his quotation. The testimony is 
 of two men, not one man; and Christ saith, "I am 
 one that bear witness, and the Father that sent 
 me beareth witness of me." Are these two wit- 
 nesses one being? Could the gentleman go into 
 court, and say, "I offer myself as one witness, my 
 soul as a second witness, and my spirit as a third 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 121 
 
 witness? Surely not. We never think of a man's 
 spirit as entirely distinct from the man himself. 
 When we say he is " a master spirit/' we mean the 
 man himself. 
 
 But let us pass to John's epistle, " There are three 
 that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, 
 and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." It 
 is well known that the authenticity of this verse has 
 been doubted, and the subject of controversy with 
 those acquainted with the ancient Greek manu- 
 scripts and versions. By most of the learned wri- 
 ters it is considered an interpolation, and many 
 Trinitarians have abandoned it as of doubtful au- 
 thenticity. 
 
 In the Improved Version of the New Testament, 
 we have the folio wmg: — " 1. This text concerning 
 the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any 
 Greek manuscript which was written earlier than 
 the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manu- 
 script earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not 
 found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not 
 cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, 
 though to prove the doctrine of the Trmity they 
 have cited the words both before and after this text. 
 
 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, 
 even when the subjects upon which they treat would 
 naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 
 
 6. It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin wri- 
 ter of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, 
 and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 7. 
 It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of 
 the New Testament since the Reformation: — in the 
 
 11 
 
122 
 
 first two of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinseus, 
 Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omit- 
 ted by Luther in his German version. In the old 
 English Bibles of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and 
 Elizabeth, it was printed m small types, or included 
 in brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 
 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose 
 authority, is not known. See Travis's Letters to 
 Gibbon, and Porson's to Travis. Also, Griesbach's 
 excellent Dissertation on the Text at the end of his 
 second volume. Abp. Newcome omits the text, and 
 the Bishop of Lincoln expresses his conviction that 
 it is spurious. Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 90, note.''* 
 
 * Thomson's New Testament has the following note on 1 
 John V. 6, 7, 8 : — " Literally as in my copy. This Jesus is the 
 Christ who was to come (or who was coming) by water and 
 by blood, not by the water only but by the water and the blood, 
 and the spirit is testifying this. Because the spirit is the truth 
 — because there are three that bear witness [in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are 
 one : and there are three that bear witness on the earth] the 
 Spirit and the Water and the Blood ; and these three are for 
 one and the same thing. 
 
 "The authenticity of the words inclosed in brackets has been 
 a subject of great doubt and dispute. 
 
 " As the sense is complete, and the connection with what 
 goes before and what follows is more clear, and better pre- 
 served without them; and as the words in dispute, supposing 
 them to be genuine, are not applicable to the doctrine of the 
 trinity; for as Beza on the passage justly remarks — 'These 
 three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one in consent, as if 
 they were only one witness; but concerning their unity in sub- 
 stance, that, as it appears to me, is not treated of in this place.' 
 And to the same purpose Calvin says, ' The apostle in declar- 
 ing these three are one does not refer to their essence, but to 
 their consent, as if he should say, the Father, his eternal Word, 
 and the Spirit, wuth one consenting voice, do equally bear tes- 
 timony to Christ; and there is no doubt but that the Father, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITr. 123 
 
 But taken in connexion with the rest of John's 
 writings, even admitting its authenticity, it will be 
 nothing in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 The grand object of the apostle, as he has said, was 
 to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, 
 (John XX. 31, and 1 John v. 13.) 
 
 The gentleman also refers to the passage, " They 
 were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost," one of the very last 
 which should be resorted to, to prove the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. 
 
 Prayer by Mr. Plummer. 
 
 Word, and Spirit, are said to be one in the same sense in 
 which it is afterwards said that the blood, water and spirit are 
 one;' and as, besides this, there are some internal and inci- 
 dental marks, which render the words very much suspected; I 
 cannot, therefore, but agree with Luther, Zwinglius, Bullinger 
 and Erasmus, that the words in the brackets ought not to be 
 admitted into the text, more especially as they arc not found 
 in any of the ancient Greek manuscripts, except only one 
 which is of doubtful authority." 
 
124 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA^S 
 
 Thursday morning, Jan, 20. 
 MR. M^CALLA. 
 
 It should be recollected that in the course of half 
 an hour, all arguments camiot be answered, and all 
 texts examined and considered. Keep this in mmd, 
 and beware of taking as conclusive, every expression 
 of my opponent, which may not receive from me 
 immediate attention. I have quoted many texts 
 which have not been noticed at all by my antagonist. 
 
 Among the passages which I referred to yesterday, 
 was that of 1 John v. 7. " There be three which 
 bear record in heaven, the Father .^ the Word, and 
 the Holy Ghost. ^^ There has been much disputing 
 about this text. — I believe it to be genume, for the 
 following reasons; — 1. St. Jerome tells us plauily, 
 that he found out how it had been adulterated, mis- 
 translated and omitted, on purpose to elude the truth. 
 2. The divines of Louvain, having compared many 
 Lathi copies, found this text wanting in only five of 
 them, and R. Stephens fomid it retained in nine of 
 sixteen ancient manuscripts which he used. 3. It is 
 certainly quoted twice by St. Cyprian, who wrote 
 before the Council of Nice, and also by TertuUian.* 
 Dr. Clarke, therefore, is not to be believed, when he 
 tells us that it was never cited by any of the Latins 
 
 * The connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in 
 the Comforter, makes three cohering the one from the other, 
 which three are one. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 125 
 
 before St. Jerome. 4. The sense is not perfect with- 
 out it, there being a contrast with three witnesses in 
 heaven to three upon earth — the Father, the Word, 
 and the Holy Ghost, whose testimony is called the 
 witness of God, and the Spirit, the water, and the 
 blood, which being administered by the church upon 
 earth, is called the witness of men. 
 
 The importance of this text, makes my opponent 
 declare it to be interpolated. At one time he says 
 this book is his creed, and he believes every word in 
 it to be true ; but when I tell you any thing about 
 the three witnesses, he tells you this is reasoning 
 about unauthenticated or doubtful texts. Dr. Priestly 
 thought Paul was not a good reasoner — a liberty 
 very common with Unitarians. With them the 
 wisdom of man is better authority than the word of 
 God. My opponent tells you most of our learned 
 Presbyterian doctors disagree about this text — that 
 doctors of divinity will differ — that there are great 
 difficulties among Presbyterians. They appear to be 
 almost as bad reasoners as himself, and as great 
 interpolaters as St. John. 
 
 He manifestly intended to make you believe that 
 a new edition is a new Confession of Faith. In the 
 book of discipline of the new edition, the forms of 
 the proceedings of Church Courts are given some- 
 what more in detail; but as to the Confession of 
 Faith, the Catechism, the Forms of Church Govern- 
 ment, and the Directions for Worship, there is not one 
 single iota of alteration. Among doctors there may 
 be greater changes. " If some go out from us, it is 
 because they were not of us." 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 My opponent has been the first to go out of the 
 received translation of the Scriptures. He has gone 
 from the Bible to our great men, some of whom do 
 not believe in the authenticity of John v. 7. Does 
 he know that he is introducing weapons, with the 
 use of Avhich he is unacquainted? Hitherto you 
 have observed that our English Bible appeared suf- 
 ficient for both parties, and he has been particularly 
 clamorous in his praises of it, and in boastful reli- 
 ance on it, and in incessant accusations against our 
 doctrines as having no support in it. We have 
 thought the English Bible full of evidence that there 
 is a triune God, and we have at last produced a text 
 at which my opponent is obliged to start and fish 
 after critics and Greek manuscripts to refute its inspi- 
 ration. I call on you to witness, that my opponent 
 is the first to open a field for which he is not quali- 
 fied. After this, we must treat the original Scrip- 
 tures as the standard, since my opponent, like Mr. 
 Campbell, and Mt. Kneeland, and the Shakers, and 
 the Mormonites, must have a new English Bible. 
 
 My antagonist has found out that Presbyterians 
 do not agree among themselves, as to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. Some, he tells you, believe in three 
 essences — others in three modes of existence — three 
 attributes, three offices, three faculties, three opera- 
 tions of the Divine Bemg, &c., &c., &:c. To Trinita- 
 rians, it will hardly be necessary to say, that he is 
 here stating what cannot be substantiated. Those 
 who believe in three essences are Tritheists — ^be- 
 lievers in three Gods ! As much Atheists as if they 
 worshipped thirty thousand. The Sahellian be- 
 
PUBLIC DEB.ATE OX THE TRINITY. 127 
 
 lieves the three persons to be one person, that is, 
 that the one person has three offices. The Arian 
 considers Jesiis Christ a sort of God, but not equal 
 -with the Father ; and the Socinian worships Jesus 
 Christ as a mere man. The worship of all these Ls 
 idolatry. They are forsaking the true God, and 
 making unto themselves idols. We say three per- 
 sons in one Divine Essence. We are satisfied with 
 the Bible as it is. My opponent may endeavor to 
 get rid of one text here, and another there, and a 
 third yonder, in the Hebrew, Greek and English 
 Scriptures, which he says are contradicted by twenty- 
 five others of an opposite doctrine ; but as for us 
 poor Trinitarians, we believe there is no contradic- 
 tion in the Bible at all, but that all Scripture was 
 given by inspiration of God, and that all is alike in- 
 fallible, as all is certainly profitable. 
 
 My opponent worships Jesus Christ as a created 
 being ; yet Dr. Priestly, who is the Father of my 
 opponent's doctrine in this comitry, charges home 
 the crime of idolatry upon those who worship a 
 mere creatm'e. My opponent tells us that he wor- 
 ships this creature because God has commanded us 
 to worship the Lamb of God, but Dr. Priestly de- 
 clares the worship of Christ to be a ^-modern Christian 
 idolatry." Mr. Kinkade insists that when the old man 
 is spoken of with hair as white as wool, it is to be 
 literally understood. So when he is commanded to 
 worship the Lamb of God, he should worship one 
 who has white wool literally. But Christians wor- 
 ship God without body, parts, or passions, and a 
 Lamb of God which thinks it not robbery to be equal 
 
128 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 with God. A character less than this, God never 
 commanded us to worship, for that would be to en- 
 join idolatry. But he has still required that we 
 should honor the Lamb of God as we honor the 
 Father. 
 
 But, says my opponent, we have nothing to do 
 with Mr. Kmkade. This is the course they have al- 
 ways pursued towards their friends m adversity. 
 Until Mr. Kneeland became an avowed Atheist, they 
 clung to him as did their brethren to Simon Magus 
 of old. He was often obliged to beg the immense 
 crowd who attended at Lombard street in the morn- 
 ing, not to go to Callowhill street in the afternoon, 
 in order that those who had not been able to hear 
 him in the morning might be accommodated in the 
 afternoon. While he possessed such immense in- 
 fluence, men would follow after him. But when it 
 was ascertained that he had been smuggling bomiets 
 — that he had been cheating the revenue — his popu- 
 larity and his friends forsook him together. Those 
 who had before been his most ardent admirers, would 
 pass by his store with — "0, don't let us go in there !" 
 — They forsook Mr. Kneeland and went after "Bro- 
 ther Plummer!" And if Mr. Plummer should be 
 detected in any similar act of dishonesty, their friend- 
 ship for him would be equally transitory. Let him 
 beware ! 
 
 T always distrust, the professions of such men. 
 Each gets a new religion as fast as their leaders 
 make Bibles. Dr. Priestly must have a new Bible — 
 so also Alexander Campbell — and I suppose we 
 shall soon have one from " Brother Plummer" also. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 129 
 
 In Alexander Campbell's New Testament, compiled 
 from Doddridge, M'Knight and Campbell of Scot- 
 land, though in his preface he promised to make it 
 conformable to their views, it was according to his 
 own views and not of any of those men. 
 
 My opponent is contmually asking why was not 
 our Bible written so ? and so ? and so ? Why was 
 not the word Trinity used ? I suppose it was not 
 used because it seemed good to God to express the 
 doctrine in other words, and I suppose the word 
 Unity was omitted for the same reason. It appears 
 that many Unitarians are averse to our Bible, be- 
 cause the great and eternal Qod chose to write his 
 own truths in his own way, without consulting my 
 opponent or any of his brethren. They sometimes 
 speak as if the plural number was used by the Crea- 
 tor, to denote a Council of Creatures with which he 
 chose to deliberate. My opponent seems angry, be- 
 cause he was not elected to that imaginaiy house, 
 and is determined, like Monsieur Thiers, in France, 
 to find fault with every state paper which issues from 
 the Guizot Cabinet. It appears to be a mere contest 
 between the outs and the ins, in which I confess that 
 I think the former will be worsted. Christians are 
 perfectly satisfied with the Bible, before it receives 
 a touch of improvement from brother Kneeland, 
 brother Plummer, Alexander Campbell, the Shakers, 
 or the Mormonites. To us it is sweeter than honey 
 from the comb, because it was written, not by the 
 old serpent or his children, but by the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. 
 
 The faults which he finds with our Bible, for not 
 
130 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 being written in such a way as he would have in- 
 dited, reminds one of the conversation between the 
 Christian and Philosopher, about the evidence of a 
 Great first cause, as exhibited in the works of crea- 
 tion. Sitting under an oak, surrounded with vines, 
 the Philosopher asked, how could an infinitely wise 
 Creator have suspended small acorns upon the 
 mighty oak, and attached weighty pumpkins to a 
 slender vine ? Just at that moment, the Christian, 
 observing that an acorn had fallen upon the Philoso- 
 pher's head, praised the wisdom and mercy of God, 
 in making it an acorn instead of a pumpkin ! It is a 
 dangerous thing for ignorant and depraved worms 
 to challenge the God of Creation or Revelation. The 
 Divine Redeemer is a Rock, upon which he who 
 falls shall be broken, but upon whomsoever it shall 
 fall it shall grind him to powder ! 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 131 
 
 MR. PLUMMER, after prayer, said, 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 
 I did not intend to be understood as denying the 
 inspiration of the Scriptures. I have no recollection 
 of having made any such declaration. I did not deny 
 the inspiration of 5th and 7th of John. I said that 
 many Trinitarians had given it up as of doubtful 
 authenticity, and that learned critics considerd it 
 an interpolation. I have no disposition to throw 
 doubt upon the passage, except so far as that doubt 
 is well founded. The gentleman, in introducing the 
 passage, made a passing remark as to its authen- 
 ticity. I have no objection to admitting the pas- 
 sage as genuine, so far as the argument of the text 
 is concerned. It has been thought by many Trini- 
 tarians to be an insurmountable argument in sup- 
 port of their theory, but taken in connexion with 
 the rest of John's writings, his true meaning will be 
 seen to have been very diiferent. The evident ob- 
 ject of the apostle, in this text, was to show that 
 " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." In the verse 
 but one immediately preceding, he inquires, " Who 
 is he that overcometh the world, but he that believ- 
 eth that Jesus is the Son of God ?" He then, as fol- 
 lows, produces the evidences of his being the Son of 
 God. " This is he that came [into public life or 
 ivas manifested to be the Son of God] by ivater and 
 blood, even Jesus Christ." That by water, is meant 
 
132 PLUMMER AND m'cALLAV 
 
 his baptism, see John i. 31. " And I knew him not: 
 but that he should be made manifest to Israel, there- 
 fore am I come baptizing with water,''^ And at 
 his baptism there came a voice from heaven saying, 
 this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. 
 But for fm'ther proof he adds, " Not by water only, 
 but by water and blood,^^ or suffering and death; 
 for his suffering unto blood and death followed his 
 baptism, with abundant evidence of his being the 
 Son of God; for all the ancient prophecies of the 
 Messiah and his sufferings were fulfilled m him; 
 and his accusers said unto him, " art thou the Christ, 
 the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said I am.^' 
 Mark xiv. 61, G2. Moreover, the three hours dark- 
 ness bear witness ; and when they " saw the earth- 
 quake, and those things that were done, they feared 
 greatly, saying, " Truly this was the Son of GodJ^ 
 Matt, xxvii. 54. David speaking of him in Psalm 
 xvi., saith, " neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One 
 to see corruption.'^ See also Acts xiii. 35. If he 
 had not been the Holy One, but an impostor, God 
 would not have prevented his seeing corruption by 
 raising him from the dead ; therefore his resurrec- 
 tion is an infallible proof of his being the Son of 
 God; " declared to be the Son of God with power, 
 according to the spirit of holmess, by the resurrec- 
 tion from the dead.'''' Rom. i. 4. Hence we see 
 the propriety of the apostle in mentioning that he 
 came by water and blood, as a proof that he is the 
 Son of God. But he adds for a third evidence that 
 "the Spirit beareth witness, because the Spirit is 
 truth." The Spirit bore witness that Jesus was the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 133 
 
 Son of God, not only by his 7'esurrection, but also 
 at his baptism; for "John bare record, saying, I 
 saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, 
 and it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but 
 he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said 
 unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- 
 scending and remaining on him, the same is he 
 which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost : and I saw, 
 and bear record that this is the Son of GodP John 
 i. 32—34. The apostle having mentioned that this is 
 he who came by water and bloody even Jesus Christ, 
 and that the Spirit beareth witness — further adds, 
 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, 
 (/. e. in the the church) the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Ghost : and these three are one." 
 
 For the Father's witness that Jesus is his Son, 
 see Mark i. 11. "And there came a voice from 
 heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son in whom 
 I am well pleased:''^ again, "There came a voice 
 out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son; 
 hear him." Luke ix. 35. of which Peter saith, 
 "for he received from God the Father, honor and 
 glory, when there came such a voice to him from 
 the excellent glory, this is my beloved Son in whom 
 I am well pleased. And this voice which came 
 from heaven we heard when we were with him in 
 the holy mount." 2 Pet. i. 17, 18. Hence Jesus 
 said, " There is another that beareth witness of me ; 
 and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of 
 me is true." John v. 32. And again, " The Fa- 
 ther himself, which hath sent me, hath borne wit- 
 ness of me.'^ Verse 37. "If ye receive the wit- 
 \2 
 
134 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 ness of men^ the witness of God is greater." 1 
 John V. 9. 
 
 The Word,* constantly declared himself to be 
 the Son of God ; and said, " Though I bare record 
 of myself, yet my record is true." John viii. 14. 
 Again, " I am one that bare witness of mi/self, and 
 the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." 
 Verse 18. He also uniformly testified that he ''came 
 forth from the Father,'' Ch. xvi. 28, and that God 
 was his Father, which is in the strongest manner 
 declaring himself to be the Son of God. 
 
 The Holy Ghost, or Spirit, also beareth record 
 that Jesus is the Son of God, not only at his bap- 
 tism, and resurrection, as I have spoken, but by the 
 Tniracles he wrought, John v. 36. and the wisdom, 
 by which he spake, vii. 40 — 46, through the Spirit. 
 Again he saith, " when the comforter is come, whom 
 I will send unto you from the Father, even the 
 Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, 
 he shall testify of me." Ch. xv. 2Q. Thus these 
 three infallible witnesses testify, that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 ''And these three are one'' — one in their testi- 
 mony: not one person; and John could not mean 
 that they three were one God, for that would destroy 
 what he was labouring to prove ; i, e. that Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of God ; for if he is the anointed 
 Son of God, he is not the God he is the anointed of; 
 therefore to say the Father and Son, the anomted 
 
 * " His name is called, The Word of God." Rev. xix. 13. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 135 
 
 and the one that anointed him, are one person, God, 
 or Being, is contradicting the Scriptures, and an 
 absolute absurdity ; not to say a mystery. Hence 
 their being one, must be the oneness or agreement in 
 their record, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 The gentleman intimated, that I had ridiculed the 
 three witnesses spoken of by John. This is incor- 
 rect. I reasoned, that one man could not be pro- 
 perly called three — that if a man was brought into 
 court, they could not call in his soul as a second wit- 
 ness, and his spirit as a third. And yet this is the 
 three-in-one person which has been brought forward 
 in this discussion, to prove the doctrme of the Trinity. 
 I wish the gentleman distinctly to answer — If the 
 three that bear witness are only one being, how can 
 they be called three witnesses ? 
 
 The gentleman denies that there has been any 
 alteration in their Confession of Faith. I called on 
 Mr. Kay, the book-seller, and he told me there had 
 been a new one published. I accordingly procured 
 a copy, the title page of which reads — " Constitution 
 of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, con- 
 taining the Confession of Faith, the Catechisms, and 
 Directory for the Worship of God ; together with the 
 Plan of Discipline, as amended and ratified by the 
 General Assembly, at their session in May, 1841." 
 I had understood the Methodists could amend theirs 
 once in four years, and supposed, from the title page 
 of this, that the Presbyterian Confession underwent 
 a similar periodical revisal. The gentleman, how- 
 ever, declares that the only changes relate to Church 
 Discipline, and I therefore stand corrected. 
 
136 PLUMMER AND MX'ALLA's 
 
 [Hev. Mr. Cooper, (Methodist) here remarked that 
 he had no recollection that their Articles of Faith had 
 at any time been changed or amended. 
 
 Hon, Geo. G. Leiper, (one of the Moderators) said 
 interruptions of this kind were out of order. If any 
 explanations were to be made, they should be de- 
 ferred until the adjournment, at 12 o'clock.] 
 
 Mr. Plummer. If then there have been no 
 amendments, ought such an intimation to be given 
 on the title page ? 
 
 The gentleman tells us that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity has been always taught, from the days of 
 Moses, but he has not brought forward a single text 
 to prove the assertion. We have given the positive 
 declarations of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus Christ and 
 the Apostles, to prove that there is but one God, one 
 Creator. Now I ask the gentleman for one plain, 
 positive passage from holy writ, to prove the exist- 
 ence of "three persons in the Divine essence." 
 
 Permit me again to say that I have never denied 
 the inspiration of the passage from John. But I ask 
 for evidence in this book that these three witnesses 
 mean one Being ? If John by three witnesses meant 
 "three persons in the Divine essence," why did not 
 John say so? But the gentleman says that God 
 will put down such blasphemy. I thought he came 
 here to show that we ought to be Trinitarians — to 
 prove to us that this doctrine is to be found in the 
 Bible. We believe all that is taught in this holy 
 book and are satisfied with it, without any additions. 
 The gentleman says it is sweet as honey. But does 
 he believe that if I had been predestinated to preach 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 137 
 
 as I do, that I am for so doing to be for ever damned ? 
 Does he not beheve that we were foreordained to be 
 the very heretics he represents us to be ? The gentle- 
 man has to eat some bitter pills. He thinks my 
 palate has become vitiated. I must confess I have 
 no appetite for such doctrines. 
 
 He has said that we beUeve Jesus Christ to be 
 a mere man. I have never said this, nor have I 
 ever advocated any such doctrine. For the twenty- 
 five years that I have preached in this vicinity, let 
 him produce a single instance m which I have made 
 any such statement. 
 
 I referred you yesterday to the galloping bishops 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries. The gentleman 
 says he formerly had a partiality for these old 
 bishops, but that he has now given it up. Suppose 
 I should say he has not given it up. It would be 
 just as reasonable as for the gentleman to persist in 
 his unauthorised charges against us. I have told 
 you that I was never a follower of Mr. Kneeland, 
 nor in any way connected with Mr. Kneeland ; but 
 he still persists in repeating the charge. If this is 
 the Avay to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, I am 
 afraid we shall have a dispute without being con- 
 verted. 
 
 The gentleman says we Avorship the Lamb, and 
 therefore argues that we are idolaters. The heavenly 
 host worships the Lord God, and the Lamb who 
 hath redeemed us unto God by his blood. Rev. v. 
 8, 12, 13. We worship the Son, not as the Father 
 but as the Son, for so the Father commands : " When 
 he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith 
 12* 
 
138 PLUMMER AND M^C ALLANS 
 
 let all the angels of God worship hmi." I hope all 
 of us shall at last be so happy as to be foimd with 
 the heavenly host, worshipping God and the Lamb. 
 For we must all come to Christ and confess him as 
 the Son of God. " There is no other name given 
 under heaven among men whereby we must be 
 saved." 
 
 The gentleman says, if Mr. Plunnner should cheat 
 the United States, he might be exposed if he should 
 become an Atheist. — This is about as pertinent as 
 some of his hits of yesterday, about the <' broad 
 brim," and weavers and shoemakers ! The gentle- 
 man cannot endure working-men. We have always 
 considered it as one of the first traits of a gentle- 
 man to be able to procure by his own industry an 
 honest livelihood. But the gentleman, like the Priests 
 of old, would rather say, " Put me I pray thee into 
 one of the priest's offices, that I may eat a piece of 
 Bread." 1 Sam. ii. 36. Our Lord was talked about 
 as a carpenter's son, and now ice are denounced as 
 weavers and shoemakers. But is this argument? 
 Paul worked at tent-making — therefore Paul must 
 be sneered at as a mechanic ! As Peter and John 
 were fishermen, the gentleman would say, " Away 
 with these fishermen ! — We want galloping bish- 
 ops, who can make trinities for us ! We want no- 
 thmg to do with working-men !" Is this to be tole- 
 rated among the hard-handed working population 
 of Delaware coimty ? 
 
 The gentleman says I have brought twenty-five 
 texts against one. Let him correct his notes. I said 
 in relation to the verse quoted by the gentleman, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 139 
 
 <^ Let us make man/' &c., that Moses had, m the 
 very next verse, repeatedly used the smgular pronoim, 
 Avhen speakmg of the same person — that in substi- 
 tutmg the pronoun for the names of Lord, God, &c. 
 he had used the smgular pronoun a hundred times 
 to one of the plural. And I then asked, if in a last 
 will and testament, a word should occiu twenty-five 
 times in the singular, and only once in the 'plural, 
 would there be any doubt about the real meaning 
 of the mstrument ? 
 
 Perhaps I have been knocked oft' the track in folio w- 
 mg the gentleman. I have but a few moments more 
 to occupy your attention on this trip. On a careful ex- 
 amination of the 5th chapter of John, it will be appa- 
 rent that the apostle could not have meant by '• these 
 three are one,'' that they were one and the same 
 being. When we take up an epistle to read, we 
 should inquire the intent of the writer — the circum- 
 stances of those to whom he wrote — and then we 
 can understand the arguments advanced. Here we 
 have John qualified by Jesus Christ, to carry out 
 and establish the glorious dispensation. John was 
 directed to write. He wrote in the Spirit — " These 
 things write I unto you, that ye may believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Let it never 
 be lost sight of that this was the object of the apos- 
 tle in writing. The burthen of the apostle's reason- 
 ing is to establish the fact that Jesus Christ is the Mes- 
 siah sent — not the God by whom he was sent. But 
 to prove that Jesus is the Saviour of the world, John 
 repeats as his object in writing, " But these are writ- 
 ten that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the 
 
140 
 
 Son of God ; and that believing, ye niight have Ufe 
 through his name. 
 
 Paul corroborates the testimony of John, as to 
 the object of their mission. He was a persecutor, 
 and in all good conscience, bound to Damascus, 
 with authority from the chief priests to commit to 
 prison those Christians who called on the name 
 of Jesus. Saul, as Avell as the gentleman, had a 
 tender conscience. At mid-day he saw a light 
 above the brightness of the sun, shining round 
 about him ; and when he had fallen to the earth, he 
 heard a voice from heaven, speaking unto him in the 
 Hebrew tongue. And what did the voice say ? '^ Saul, 
 Saul, why persecutest thou me ?'^ Saul answered, 
 "Who art thou. Lord?'' Did Jesus say, "I am God 
 —God of God— God the Son?" No. But, "I am 
 Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." " And 
 straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, 
 that he is the Son of God.'''' Now I would ask the 
 gentleman, with all his learning, his Hebrew and 
 Greek — why did not Christ let Paul know if he 
 was God ? Paul preached that Christ the Son of 
 God died for our sins accordmg to the Scriptures, 
 and that he was buried and rose again, according to 
 the Scriptures. This I believe and confess, for Paul 
 also says, that " at the name of Jesus every knee 
 shall bow and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord to the glory of God the Father." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRFNITY. 141 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 I had better be as rapid as possible, before my 
 opponent shall take another flight. Yesterday he 
 poured contempt on hunters, weavers and shoe- 
 makers, and to-day he has turned out their advocate, 
 and tries to saddle me with opinions which I never 
 expressed. In my remarks, I was the advocate of 
 shoemakers and weavers, and gave my reasons for 
 being so. My lot has always been among the poor 
 Irish population of Philadelphia. The very officers 
 of my church have been weavers and shoemakers. 
 I have always delighted to be among them, while I 
 have been obnoxious to the displeasure of the whole 
 corps of galloping bishops. But my opponent ap- 
 pears to be so much attached to them, and to keep 
 them galloping so incessantly, that I heard some of 
 our audience express great sympathy for the poor 
 horses. My opponent appears to have forgotten the 
 good old maxim, that a righteous man is merciful 
 to his beast. However, that belongs to the old 
 Bible, out of which he and Mr. Kneeland, and Alex- 
 ander Campbell, are rapidly galloping into the Shaker 
 and Mormon Bibles. For my own part, having been 
 born and brought up in Kentucky, I have always 
 loved a horse, and learned to treat him kindly, which 
 may have had some mfluence in keeping me from 
 joining the corps of galloping bishops to which my 
 opponent appears so attached. 
 
 With regard to his insinuations, that I exercise 
 
142 PLUMMER AND m'c ALLANS 
 
 ministerial functions for the sake of filthy lucre, I 
 will observe that they come with an ill grace from 
 the author of them, against a man who has had 
 abundant opportunities of making money, but has 
 probably less of it than any other minister of the 
 same denomination in the United States. Con- 
 formably with his insinuations before this audience, 
 it has been privately circulated, that I have received 
 twenty dollars for my late visit, and fifty dollars for 
 the present. It is hardly necessary for me to contra- 
 dict such gratuitous and invidious fabrications. My 
 Master will always furnish me with the means of 
 subsistence, and it is my delight and privilege to 
 labor in his good service without setting my heart 
 upon earthly rewards. They are so small an affair 
 in my view, that I should feel myself honored with 
 my present privilege, if I had no other sustenance 
 during my visit here than the raw material, and 
 liberty to cook it myself This I have been ac- 
 customed to do in the prairies of Texas, traversed by 
 those hunters to whom my opponent now appears 
 to have a particular aversion, on account of the fall 
 of his hunter oracle, Mr. Kinkade. While he was 
 in his glory, he could make all his followers believe 
 that the Creator had literally those members of the 
 body which were figuratively ascribed to him in the 
 Bible. His absurdities reminded me of an old clergy- 
 man in Kentucky. One of these furious literalists 
 was trying to proselyte him, and the old clergyman 
 reasoned in this way : Said he, « you really believe, 
 sir, that these Scriptures, which we understand as 
 figurative, must be literally interpreted?" "Yes, sir, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 143 
 
 I do," said the improver. " Then," said the clergy 
 man, " that old lady mentioned in the Apocalypse 
 as sitting upon seven hills, must have a large sitting 
 capacity !" 
 
 It is plain that Mr. Kinkade, Mr. Plummer, Alex- 
 ander Campbell, and Brother Kneeland, have a sort 
 of piety, a sort of reverence for the Saviour, which 
 differs widely from that which is written in the 
 Scriptures, and wrought in the hearts of his childi'en. 
 Christians look upon him as the highest, holiest, and 
 best — 
 
 " The brightest, sweetest, fairest one, 
 That eyes have seen, or angels known ;" 
 
 Whereas my opponent can speak of him in an ir- 
 reverent manner, as he has done in this neighbor- 
 hood, as "a little the best man God ever made." 
 This he did in a discussion with jNIr. J. Smith ; and 
 he has also asserted, that "if Jesus Christ be God, 
 the devil is God." 
 
 In the third chapter of Exodus, Mr. Kinkade ac- 
 knowledges that Jesus Christ calls himself the "I am 
 that I am," which title, like the name Jehovah, is a re- 
 duplicate expression of existence, equivalent to a de- 
 claration that he is the Being Being, that is, that he 
 is the self-existent, independent, and eternal being, 
 and the author of all being. In the book of Revelation 
 Mr. Kinkade acknowledges that it is Christ who says 
 that he is the Lord God Almighty, "which is, and 
 which was, and which is to come." This is a good 
 translation of the name Jehovah, compounded of 
 verbs of existence and of the title, " I am that I 
 
144 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 am," of similar import. If the self-existent, inde- 
 pendent, uncreated, eternal Being, and the som-ce of 
 all being, may be received as the Supreme God, 
 then these passages prove that Jesus Christ is the 
 Supreme God. 
 
 So in the passage from Isaiah liv. 5 — "Thy 
 maker[s] is thine husband[s], the Lord of Hosts is 
 his name." The church, here referred to as the 
 bride of Christ, can no more have two distinct hus- 
 bands, than Christ can have two distinct churches. 
 "As the church is the bride ^ the body^ the building 
 of God, and as there is one bride, one body, one 
 building, so is there, on the other hand, one God, 
 who is the Husband or Bridegroom, one Christ, 
 who is the Head, and one God who is the light of 
 it." 
 
 I told you yesterday, that the passage from Reve- 
 lation, "Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty," is a 
 liberal translation. Here, as in the passage from 
 Isaiah, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, 
 the whole earth is full of his glory," also referred to 
 yesterday, the perfect number of the Trinity is 
 taken to declare the manifold holiness of God — "a 
 repeated inter-communion of a three-fold holiness — 
 the holiness of the Father, the holiness of the Son, 
 and the holiness of the Holy Ghost. St. John says 
 of the passage from Isaiah, "These things said 
 Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake 
 of him," thus affirming the presence and glory of 
 Christ. 
 
 Christ is called the only Divine Potentate, (2 Peter 
 ii. 1=) "But there were false prophets also among 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 145 
 
 the people, even as there shall be false teachers 
 among you, who privily shall bring in damnable 
 heresies, even denying the Lord [Potentate] that 
 bought them." To prove that Christ is here the only 
 Divine Potentate, compare Jude iv. where he is de- 
 clared to be the "Only Lord God [Divine Poten- 
 tate,] and our Lord Jesus Christ," the Greek article 
 showing that there is one person spoken of under 
 different names, that is, that our Lord Jesus Christ 
 is the "only Divine Potentate," a rule which in 1 
 Timothy vi. 15, applies equally to the Divine Father, 
 who is there said to be " the blessed and only Po- 
 tentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords." 
 
 The expression in Jude, "the only Divine Po- 
 tentate and our Lord Jesus Christ," is declared by 
 errorists to mean two persons, plainly marked, as they 
 pretend, by the conjunction between them; but ac- 
 cording to this, there must be two persons in Philipi- 
 ans iv. 20, also — " Now unto God and our Father 
 be glory for ever and ever." Does this mean that 
 God is another person from our Father ? Does the 
 intervening conjunction mean two persons? The 
 acknowledged meaning is, that the glory is here 
 given to God who is our Father. So in Jude, the 
 meaning is, that the heretics there mentioned, were 
 condeimied for "denying the only Lord God, who is 
 our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus, Jude proves as 
 plainly that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only I^ord 
 God, or Divine Potentate, as the epistle to the Phi- 
 lipians proves that God is our Father. The manner 
 of expression is precisely the same. 
 
 " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the 
 13 
 
146 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 ending, saith the Lord, who is, and was, and is to 
 come, the Ahnighty.'^ (Rev. i. 8.) The words Mpha 
 and Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek 
 alphabet, " denote the first cause and last end, the 
 author and finisher of all things in creation, pro- 
 vidence, and redemption." — Kinkade, page 12, ad- 
 mits that the text refers to Christ, for, says he, " I 
 camiot see the propriety of saymg the Father is to 
 come." If then, it is Christ who is speakmg, he has 
 a just title to every name and attribute spoken of in 
 the verse. He says, " I am Alpha and Omega — the 
 Jilmighty, therefore Christ must be the true God.'^ 
 
 Solomon says — " The fear of the Lord is the be- 
 ginning of Avisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy 
 {^Ones\ is miderstanding." The Scriptures tell us, in 
 relation to our Divine Redeemer, " By the Imow- 
 ledge of liim shall my righteous servant justify 
 many;" and he himself says, "This is life eternal 
 to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent." These, therefore, are tv/o 
 of the Holy Ones, the knowledge of whom is said 
 to be miderstanding in our text, and this knowledge 
 is equivalent to that fear of Jehovah which is said 
 to be the beginning of wisdom in the first clause of 
 the text. With sincere afi"ection to the uumortal 
 souls of my hearers, I would put the question to 
 their consciences, is blasphemy agamst the Redeemer 
 to be called the fear of that divine person, and is the 
 rejection of the Holy Ones a saving knowledge of 
 the Holy Ones ? and is this mad folly of denying the 
 triune God of revelation a fulfilment of that wis- 
 dom and of that understanding recognised in our text? 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 147 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 
 Mr, Chairman, 
 
 The gentleman has, m four or five minutes, en- 
 deavored to show that certam passages prove the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. If his rendering of the pas- 
 sage, " thy Makers are thy husbands," is to be re- 
 ceived as correct, then are there not a plurahty of 
 Creators and husbands, and must there not also be a 
 plurality of wives ? 
 
 I have no recollection of any discussion with Mr. 
 Smith. There was some talk of a discussion. I never 
 said that Jesus Christ was a little the best man God 
 ever made. As to saying that if ^* Jesus Christ is 
 God, the devil is God," I may have said, in re- 
 marking upon the use of the term God in the Scrip- 
 tures, that it was applied to Christ, and also to the 
 devil. Is not the devil called the God of this world? 
 The Scriptures give this name to angels, to men, to 
 dumb idols, and to the devil. Paul says, " the God of 
 this world hath blinded the minds of them who be- 
 lieve not." Moses was called God — "the Lord said 
 unto Moses, see I have made thee a God mito Pha- 
 raoh." Exod. vii. I. "Who is like unto thee, 
 Lord, among the Gods?" Exod. xv. 11. "Thou 
 shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy 
 people." Exod. xxii. 28. " For the Lord your God, 
 is God of Gods." Deut. x. 17. "God standeth in 
 the congregation of the mighty ; he judgeth among 
 
148 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 the Gods.'^ Psal. Ixxxii. 1. Verse 6, "1 have said 
 ye are Gods." " Among the Gods there is none Hke 
 unto thee, Lord.'' Psal. Ixxxvi. 8. "Worship 
 him all ye Gods." Psal. xcvii. 7. Verse 9, "For 
 thou, Lord, art high above all the earth ; thou art 
 exalted far above all Gods." 
 
 I shall not again go over the AUeghanies unless 
 the gentleman renders it necessary. I should regret 
 to be under the necessity of asking him some serious 
 questions. I have repeatedly said that we are not 
 responsible for the views of Kinkade or any other man. 
 
 We will now again call your attention to John. 
 We have already shown that the grand object of the 
 apostle was to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the 
 Messiah. John says, (1 John 1 — 3,) "That which 
 we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that 
 ye also may have fellowship with us : and truly our 
 fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
 Christ." There were false teachers who denied that 
 Jesus is the Christ, and sought to seduce the disciples 
 from this faith. Hence the apostle saith — "These 
 things have I written unto you, concerning them that 
 seduce you." (Chapter 2, verse 26.) Again, (same 
 chapter, 21st, 22d and 23d verses,) " I have not writ- 
 ten imto you, because ye know not the truth ; but 
 because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 
 Who is a LIAR, but he that denieth that Jesus is the 
 Christ ?" This is what the gentleman calls a blas- 
 phemous question! "He is antichrist that denieth 
 the Father and the Son. W^hosoever denieth the 
 Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that 
 acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 149 
 
 The gentleman, in speaking of the Father and Son, 
 tells you that they are one God — one being. Can 
 any one more positively deny the Father and the 
 Son than by saying they are one being ? He is anti- 
 christ that denieth the Father and the Son. 
 
 The gentleman called us by a fictitious name, at 
 our meeting-house, and with it amused himself and 
 his admirers for half an hour. We will not nick- 
 name him. We will give him a name to which he 
 is legitimately entitled — a scriptural name — He is 
 Jlntichrist ! 
 
 He despairs of putting us down by his own exer- 
 tions. He says, " we must look to God !" But the 
 gentleman's difficulty is with the word of God — 
 not with us. — Does not the gentleman's creed deny 
 any such bemg as the Son of God, distinct from the 
 Father? "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath 
 7iot the Father ; but he that aclmowledgeth the Son 
 hath the Father also." "And this is his command- 
 ment, that we should believe on the name of his Son 
 Jesus Christ." "Beloved, believe not every spirit, 
 but try the spirits whether they are of God ; because 
 many false prophets are gone out into the world. 
 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that 
 confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is 
 of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that 
 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God : and 
 this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard 
 that it should come, and even now aheady is it in 
 the world." " We are of God ; he that knoweth God, 
 heareth us ; he that is not of God, heareth not us. 
 Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit 
 13* 
 
150 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 of error. Beloved, let us love one another : for love 
 is of God ; and every one that loveth, is born of God, 
 and knoweth God. He that loveth not, Imoweth 
 not God, for God is love. In' this was manifest the 
 love of God toward us, because that God sent his 
 only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live 
 through him. Herein is love, not that we loved 
 God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to he the 
 propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, 
 we ought also to love one another," (iv. 6 — 11.) "No 
 man hath seen God at any time." Will the gentle- 
 man say the Son was never seen ? And yet he says 
 that the Son is that God whom John says was never 
 seen at any time. " If we love one another, God 
 dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Here- 
 by know we that we dwell in him and he in us, 
 because he has given us of his Spirit ; and we have 
 seen, and do testify, that the Father sent the Son, to 
 be the Saviour of the world." Not that he sent him- 
 self! or a third part of himself — but sent his Son. 
 The Father is spoken of as saving by the Son whom 
 he hath sent. " Wliosoever shall confess that Jesus is 
 the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." 
 
 What, confess that he is the Son of the whole Tri- 
 nity ? the Son of the Son, Father, and Holy Ghost ? 
 
 But again, John v. 1. — " Whosoever belie veth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. — And whosoever 
 is born of God, overcometh the world, and this is 
 the victory that overcometh the world, even our 
 faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but 
 he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God.^ This 
 is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 151 
 
 Christ ; not by water only, but by water and blood : 
 and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the 
 Spirit is truth." This is he that came into public 
 life, or was made manifest, by water and blood. John 
 came as his forerunner and said, "For this cause 
 have I come baptising with water, that he might be 
 made manifest unto Israel." 
 
 All were looking for him to be made manifest, 
 when, at his baptism, Jehovah said — " This is my 
 beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Who 
 gives God the he when he says, " This is my beloved 
 Son," but he that denieth this record ? We believe 
 this record. We go for Bible words — they are sweet 
 enough without acid. We want no change nor addi- 
 tion to the Father's testimony. 
 
 " Not by water only but by water and blood." 
 — The antichrists of that day, said — "Away with 
 him — ^he teacheth contrary to our customs." He 
 didn't hold to their creeds. They condemned him 
 to be crucified. He was nailed to the cross — the earth 
 quaked — the sun was darkened — and Jesus bowed 
 his head and gave up the ghost. His enemies said, 
 " truly this was a good man, tliis was the Son of 
 God." Thus the Lamb of God was slain, and by 
 his own blood, ratified the new covenant. 
 
 We will not dwell on his prayer — the affecting 
 scene in the garden of Gethsemane, when he sweat, 
 as it were, great drops of blood, and said, " if possi- 
 ble, let this cup pass from me — but, holy Father, thy 
 will and not mine be done." Did God ever pray? 
 This was Christ the Son of the living God. He was 
 brought to the cross and to the tomb. In the tomb 
 
152 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA^S 
 
 he saw not corruption, but was declared to be the 
 Son of God, with power, according to the Spirit of 
 hohness, by the resurrection from the dead. Tell me 
 that God was raised from the dead ! that the Great 
 Jehovah was crucified ! [I heard a clergyman in a 
 discourse say that he who had given life, breath and 
 being, to all things, died on the cross between two 
 thieves.] Nor was it the mere manhood of Christ, 
 as the gentleman's creed declares. For upon either 
 hypothesis, they would annihilate the Son of God. 
 This is the Lamb v/ho has redeemed us by his blood, 
 and is now at the right hand of God. This is he 
 who came by blood. 
 
 Being thus exalted at the right hand of power, 
 Christ shed forth the promised Comforter upon his 
 disciples, at the day of Pentecost — ^the Spirit received 
 from his Father — ^by which they went forth every 
 where preaching the word, the Lord working with 
 them, confirming the word, with gifts of healing, 
 and power of the Holy Ghost. And thousands by 
 the Spirit of truth were converted to God. 
 
 Thus by the wafer, the blood, and the Spirit, is 
 Jesus Christ proved to be the Son of the living God. 
 There are three that bear record in heaven, the Fa- 
 ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three 
 are one. We have noticed that Jesus, or the Word, 
 imiformly speaks of himself as the Son of God. Let 
 the gentleman point to the passage where he says, 
 " I am God Almighty." When the Comforter came 
 down it empowered the apostles to be fishers of men, 
 and they went forth baptising them that believed, and 
 administering the cup of blessing, which is the bloo^ 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 153 
 
 of Christ. This baptism and this communion are 
 perpetuated in the Church, as standing witnesses that 
 Jesus is the Mediator. " There are three that bear 
 witness on the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and 
 the blood, and these agree in one," — that is, one in 
 testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. 
 
 " If we receive the witness of men, the witness 
 of God is greater : for this is the witness of God, 
 which he hath testified of his Son. He that behev- 
 eth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: 
 he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar ; be- 
 cause he believeth not the record that God gave of 
 his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given 
 to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that 
 hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son 
 of God, hath not life. These things have I written 
 unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God ; 
 that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that 
 ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 
 
 "And we know that the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding, that we may 
 know him that is true, and we are in him that is 
 true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
 God and eternal life." 
 
 My opponent has told you that the words " true 
 God and eternal life," refer to Christ. Do they 
 allude to him who is twice before in the same verse 
 called the true God, or to him who is twice in the 
 same verse called the Son of God. If the latter, you 
 make the apostle contradict himself, and Jesus Christ 
 also, who says — " This is life eternal, that they might 
 know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
 
154 
 
 thou hast sent." Therefore to say that John calls 
 Jesus Christ the only true God and eternal life, 
 would be saying that he has given his Lord the lie. 
 But, that the beloved disciple is not guilty of this 
 censure we may clearly see if we attend to the plain 
 import of his words. The literal reading of the pas- 
 sage is — we know that the Messiah is come, and 
 hath given us an understanding that we may know 
 GOD that is true, and we are in GOD that is true, 
 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This \i, e. GOD that is 
 true] is the true GOD, and eternal life. Compare 
 this with the words of Christ, " this is life eternal, 
 that they might know thee, the only true GOD, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We have 
 now gone through with John. 
 
 We will now give the gentleman two minutes of 
 Paul. (Galatians i. 3.) "Grace be with you and 
 peace from God our Father, and from our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Why did not Paul say, " Grace be 
 with you from the Trinity," or, " from the Triune 
 God?" 
 
 " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him 
 that called you into the grace of Christ imto another 
 gospel: Which is not another; but there be some 
 that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of 
 Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, 
 preach any other gospel unto you than that which 
 we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 As we said before, so say I now again, if any 77ian 
 preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have 
 received, let him be accursed." " For it pleased God 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 1 55 
 
 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him 
 among the heathen." 
 
 I told you I had done with John, but I must take 
 you into another part of his epistles. " Grace be 
 with you, mercy and peace from God our Father, 
 and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Fa- 
 ther, in truth and love. — And this is love, that we 
 walk after his commandments. This is the com- 
 mandment, That as ye have heard from the begin- 
 ning ye should walk in it. For many deceivers are 
 entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus 
 Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and 
 an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not 
 those things which we have wrought, but that we 
 receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, 
 and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not 
 God : He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he 
 hath both the Father and the Son. If there come 
 any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
 him not into your house, neither bid him God 
 speed." (2 John.) 
 
 The object of the apostles in writing, it will be 
 seen, was to caution the disciples against those de- 
 ceivers, who preach any other gospel than that 
 which confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God. 
 Paul says, "Let them be accursed;" and John says, 
 " Bid them not God speed, lest ye be partakers of 
 their evil deeds. For he is an antichrist that de- 
 nieth the Father and the Son." 
 
 Adjourned to 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
156 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Thursday, 1 P. M. 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 I have been requested to make some further ex- 
 planations relative to the Articles of Faith of the 
 Methodist Church. I am desired to say, that the 
 amendments relate entirely to matters of jurispru- 
 dence. I knew how it stood with our own church, 
 and I now have it in my power to make this state- 
 ment on behalf of the Methodists. 
 
 INIy opponent has denied that he spoke of Christ 
 contemptuously, as " a little the best man that God 
 ever made ;" and he has also denied that he said 
 " if Christ was God, the devil was God." Yet these 
 things have peeped out in the course of his denials, 
 apologies, and arguments, and in my hand I now 
 hold a written certificate, signed by two respectable 
 citizens of this county, provmg the truth of the 
 statements which he has denied 
 
 The proofs already produced, clearly establish the 
 doctine of a Trinity ; but these are by no means all. 
 This doctrme, my hearers, holds an important rela- 
 tion to all that is solemn and all that is valuable to 
 us. If God is never worshipped, but when he is 
 worshipped in spirit and in truth — if he has been 
 pleased to reveal him to us in a Trinity of persons, 
 and if he has connected that mode of existence with 
 all that is precious and consolatoiy in the hope of 
 oiu salvation — who shall be able to count the conse- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 157 
 
 quence of understanding him perfectly ! — Who shall 
 sufficiently fear the danger of a mistake on a sub- 
 ject of such vast importance ! 
 
 Our opponents, who please themselves in propor- 
 tion to the profane levity with which they can treat 
 the most sacred subjects, love to misrepresent Trini- 
 tarians as holding such doctrines as that God can die, 
 and did die on the Cross ; and that, as the Son is 
 co-essential with the Father, therefore the Father 
 died. This gives me an opportunity to make expla- 
 nations, which may be one good brought out of the 
 evil of slanderous falsehoods. We do not believe 
 that Jehovah has died, nor can die, nor that his death 
 could possibly do us any good. We do not believe 
 that either person of the Holy Trinity has died, nor 
 can die, nor can benefit us by dying. Our opponents 
 desii'e to confound the Father and the Son, and make 
 us hold that the Father died, has been already main- 
 tained by heretics called Patripassions or Father 
 Sufferers. We do not believe that the divinity can 
 suffer. We believe that the humanity of Christ 
 suffered more than we can express or conceive. We 
 believe that besides the sufferings of his bleeding 
 body, he offered his soul a sacrifice for sin, and that 
 in his human soul and body he bore the punishment 
 of our sins, if we be among his sheep, for whom he 
 declares that he died. We believe that this humanity 
 of his was so mysteriously, amazingly and con- 
 descendingly taken into union with the second per- 
 son of the Trinity — ^not the first nor the third — that 
 the suff'erings and death of this humanity were as 
 efficacious to an atonement for our sins, as if Deity 
 14 
 
158 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 could have died and had died in our place, and to 
 procure our pardon. And we believe that as the 
 altar sanctifieth the gift, the divinity of Christ was 
 the altar which sanctified the ofFermg of his huma- 
 nity, and made it efiicacious to the salvation of all 
 who enter heaven. As his Divmity was the altar, 
 and his hmnanity the offering, so we believe that his 
 divine person, (in which divmity and humanity are 
 thus mysteriously united) is the High-Priest of our 
 profession, who ofiered the sacrifice of his humanity 
 upon the altar of his divinity, for he had power to 
 lay down his life and take it up again. Thus we see 
 that in real Trmitarianism, as m real Protestantism, 
 and real Christianity, it is a heresy to say that God 
 can literally suifer and die. When the Bible speaks 
 of the blood of God, it evidently has reference to 
 the truths which we now have been stating, in 
 which the blood of Christ's human body was figura- 
 tively called the blood of God, because his divine 
 person has a human soul and body, mysteriously 
 united with the second person of the Godhead. This 
 is evidently the meaning also of our sweet poet, 
 when he says that — 
 
 " God the mighty maker died, 
 For man the creature's sin !" 
 
 Were God such a being as Mr. Kinkade's Christians 
 believe, then he could easily die. A being possess- 
 ed of body, parts, and passions, such as jNIr. Kin- 
 kade's God, can as easily die as the old hunter who 
 set him up. Such theology, when expressed, may 
 well excite a blush in my opponent. It may well 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 159 
 
 be an object of derision and a cause of confusion to 
 men, and excite the laughter of devils ! 
 
 To show you that my opponent is determined to 
 keep up with Alexander Campbell and the corps of 
 galloping bishops, in their career of improvement, 
 listen to his commentary on the passage from Isaiah, 
 "Thy makerl-s] is thine husba}id[s^, the Lord of 
 Hosts is his name." Upon this he declares, without 
 denymg the correctness of the criticism, that a hus- 
 band requires a wife, and a plurality of husbands a 
 plm-ality of wives. From this you can see, whence 
 came the improved Shaker bible, teaching that there 
 are two persons in the Godhead, the Father and the 
 Mother/ My opponent requires no violent change 
 to be a thoroughly improved Shaker. When God 
 says, "thy makers is thy husbands," Trhiitarians do 
 not feel at liberty to contradict nor deride. They hum- 
 bly pray that the Spirit of Grace may give them an 
 understanding of its meaning and an experience of 
 its edifying sweetness. They therefore believe that 
 God the Father is the husband of the Church, and 
 that God the Son also is the maker and the husband 
 of the Church. That is, that Jesus Christ takes the 
 church, which he redeemed with his precious blood, 
 into a gracious covenant union with himself, and 
 that the cherishing love and care exercised by the 
 husband towards his wife, is only a feeble figure of 
 the condescending, faithful, gracious and glorious 
 affection of Jesus Christ for the chiuch. 
 
 Alexander Campbell got himself elected to the 
 Virginia Convention, and passed himself off as 
 Bishop Oampbell ; and was accordingly designated 
 
160 PXUMMER AND m'c ALLANS 
 
 by John Randolph, and the members of the Conven- 
 tion, as the Right Reverend Gentleman ! I have 
 never been ambitious of titles, nor fond of prelatical 
 distinctions. Instead of being pleased with the gal- 
 loping bishops of antiquity, or the galloping bishop 
 of the Virginia Convention, or his galloping friends 
 here or elsewhere, the last synod in which I sat can 
 testify, that when a ridiculous motion was made in 
 that body to attach this title to all its members, I 
 was humbly instrumental in defeating the motion. 
 Without such a measure, I believe that men and 
 ministers are naturally disposed to gallop fast enough 
 into vanity and pride, pomp and power. And my 
 policy is, like that of a righteous man, to spare the 
 poor horses. 
 
 I am' no more inclined to have a female Deity 
 than I am to have a prelate on earth, or an old hun- 
 ter in heaven. My opponent's criticism on Isaiah 
 liv. 5, shows that he is prepared to have a divine 
 wife and a divine mother, for this divine corporeal 
 father and husband which his brother Kinkade has 
 deified. I feel under no obligation to reverence such 
 deities, any more than Elijah did to reverence Baal 
 or his priests. If this Baal of my opponent must 
 have a wife, I would venture to play the match- 
 maker upon the occasion, and recommend to him a 
 very suitable partner, in the apocalyptic old lady, 
 who sits upon the seven hills ! As she is declared 
 to be already a mother, being the mother of harlots 
 and an innumerable priesthood of blasphemers, she 
 could at once present the old hunter with a large 
 family exactly according to his taste. And to show 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE OX THE TRIXITr. 161 
 
 you that I am not doing him any injustice, I would 
 remind you that his Christian mythology represents 
 Christ, his secondary God, as the Son of his old cor- 
 poreal man in heaven, as Isaac was the son of Abra- 
 ham. Let the Pagan genealogy of gods beat this if 
 it can ! And let the mother of harlots and abomina- 
 tions of the earth show any thing more abominable ! 
 
 Intelligent and consistent Trmitarians, speak figu- 
 ratively, when they represent God as a husband, 
 and the church as a wife ; and when they speak of 
 the Mother of the Son of God, they allow jMary to 
 to be the mother of his human body, and not the 
 mother of his divinity. The divine Son of God had 
 no mother, and yet he is the Son of God mysteri- 
 ously and incomprehensibly. Isaiah says, (liii. S,) 
 "Who shall declare his generation?'^ It could not 
 be from a mother, for it was before mothers existed. 
 Solomon says, (Proverbs viii. 23, 24,) " I was set up 
 from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the 
 earth was — when there were no depths I was brought 
 forth;" or, more correctly, "When there were no 
 depths was my generation — when there were no 
 fountains abomiding with water." The eternity of 
 this generation is one reason, doubtless, why Isaiah 
 asked the question, " Who shall declare his genera- 
 tion ?" For what worm of yesterday can compre- 
 hend the Triune Creator, who is from eternity to 
 eternity ? 
 
 Ecclesiastes v. 8, — " If thou seest the oppression 
 
 of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and 
 
 justice in a province, marvel not at the matter, for 
 
 he that is higher than the highest regardeth, and 
 
 14* 
 
162 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 these be Higher (Ones) than they." Who is the 
 highest here ? It is Jehovah the Supreme God — in 
 Hebrew phnal, the Holy Ones. And here again is 
 a plurahty in unity — not three persons in one person, 
 but three divine, intelhgent agents in one God — only 
 one God. 
 
 Genesis xx. 1 3. — Abraham said, " And it came to 
 pass, when God caused me to wander from my 
 father's house," &c. The Hebrew here is " The 
 Divine Ones they caused me to wander from my 
 father's house." 
 
 Malachi i. 6. — " If I be a Master, where is my 
 fear, saith the Lord of Hosts," &c. The Hebrew 
 word for Master, in this passage, [Adomin,) is in 
 the plural — " If I am Masters," &:c. Here again is 
 a plurality clearly expressed. 
 
 The last passage is from the close of the old Testa- 
 ment, but let it not be understood, that the Trinity 
 was first revealed so late as Malachi, or Solomon, or 
 Moses, for he is spoken of as the author of crea- 
 tion. (Ecclesiastes xii. 1.) The Hebrew says, 
 "Remember thy Creators in the days of thy 
 youth," and the Hebrew of the first verse in the 
 Bible says — " In the beginning the Divine Ones 
 created the heavens and the earth." Immediately 
 after the fall, the second of these Divine Ones, the 
 Word of God, there called the Voice of the Lord, is 
 represented as walking in the garden in the cool of 
 the day, and reproving Adam for his sin. The same 
 Divine One is directly afterwards promised as the 
 seed of the woman to bruise the serpent's head. This 
 promise appeared then to be in the Bible of the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 163 
 
 church, and appears to have been mistaken by Eve, 
 as the promise of a son was afterward mistaken by 
 Abraham. Abraham took Ishmael, a type of anti- 
 christ, for the promised son, a type of Christ. So 
 Eve took her first born Cain, a type of antichrist, 
 for the promised seed, the Messiah himself. This is 
 manifest in the Hebrew of her own words : I have 
 gotten a man child, not from the Lord, but the Lord 
 hunself Her words are — "I have gotten a man 
 child, the veiy Jehovah,'' which shows that in the 
 first family of the church, and of the race, the pro- 
 mised seed of the woman, the Saviour of sinners, 
 was miderstood to be God manifest in the flesh, a 
 divine person, having two natures. Cain was a 
 murderer, and Ishmael a robber. Their character 
 was mistaken by their respective parents ; but the 
 true son of the promise — the Messiah, was neither 
 the one nor the other, and he thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God. 
 
164 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 Mr, Chairman, 
 
 The written certificate introduced by the gentle- 
 man, he says, is backed by two witnesses. Two 
 highly respectable gentlemen, on the other hand, 
 who were7;re5e;i/ on the occasion referred to, have 
 assured me to-day that my language has been entire- 
 ly misrepresented. And I will take this opportunity 
 to remark, that I shall take no notice, during this dis- 
 cussion, of any notes of a similar character. 
 
 The passage from John v. 7, has offered an ex- 
 cuse for the gentleman to go to the Hebrew. As to 
 his "plurality of Creators and husbands," will he 
 enlighten us by saying, why he differs from the 
 Jews m the rendering of this passage ? The gentle- 
 man says that if Jehovah has revealed himself in 
 the character of three persons in the Godhead, we 
 are bound to believe it. So say we, if he has. But 
 this is begging the question. It remains for the gen- 
 tleman to prove that he has so revealed himself. I 
 would remind the gentleman of one remarkable fact. 
 Our creed declares that God is one — that Jesus Christ 
 is distmct from God, the Mediator between God and 
 men — that " there is one God, and one INIediator be- 
 tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Paul 
 says, " We were reconciled to God by the death of 
 his Son.''^ And again, " God hath reconciled us to 
 himself by Jesus Clirist, and hath given us the min- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 165 
 
 istry of reconciliation." Thus God was in Christ, 
 reconciUng the world unto himself. — "Now then we 
 are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did be- 
 seech you by us ; we pray you^ in Christ's stead, he ye 
 reconciled to God. And again, " That he might re- 
 concile both unto God in one body by the cross.'^ 
 
 What one Mediator is this between God and men^, 
 if Jesus Christ is the only God ? 
 
 We pass, with these remarks. \^Tienever the 
 gentleman proves that God has revealed himself in a 
 Trinity of persons, we shall bow with submission. 
 We are not for any alteration in our Confession of 
 Faith. If not sufficient, let us wait until Jehovah 
 shall give us another. 
 
 John V. 7, is no proof that Christ is the eternal, 
 self-existent God. The passage was written by the 
 apostle to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Soji of 
 God — not the God of whom he is the Son. 2 John 
 7, says: — "For many deceivers are entered into the 
 world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh : this is a deceiver and an antichrist. ^^ 
 And again, in the ninth verse, "Whosoever trans- 
 gresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, 
 hath not God: he that abideth in the doctrine of 
 Christ, hath both the Father and the SonJ" What 
 does this mean — ''Hath both the Father and the 
 Son?^^ If it means both God the Father and 
 God the Son, one being — why did not John so tell 
 us ? I might ask such questions till the sun goes 
 down. 
 
 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea 
 Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do 
 
166 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 men say that I, the Son of man, am ? And they said, 
 Some say that thou art John the Baptist ; some, 
 EUas ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 
 He said imto them. But whom say ye that I am ? 
 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the hving God. And Jesus an- 
 swered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar-jonah ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
 unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
 I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter ; and upon 
 this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it.^' 
 
 Christians of Delaware county ! — Upon this rock 
 have I built my faith ! — Not upon Peter, but this 
 Revelation of the Father — ^^ Thou art the Christ, the 
 Sonoi the living God!'^ 
 
 Let us now turn to Paul. " Grace be unto you, 
 and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Not the divine humanity, but our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Why say, "and from our 
 Lord Jesus Chiist," if he be God the Father ? Is 
 there not an evident distinction intended here, be- 
 tween God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ ? 
 Jolm does not tell us that they are one God — ^but 
 one in their testimony that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God. I hope the gentleman will be converted and 
 believe in one God, and confess that Jesus is his 
 Son. I hope not only that the young, but that per- 
 sons with gray hairs, will not be too proud to ac- 
 knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, unto salvation. 
 
 But, hear the apostle — " Grace be unto you, and 
 peace from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE O^ THE TRINITY. 167 
 
 Christ.'' Did we ever tead of grace from the Tri- 
 nity? It pleased the Father that in Christ "should 
 all fulness of grace dwell." There are numerous 
 other passages in which this salutation is similarly- 
 expressed ; and which clearly proves Christ to be a 
 bemg distinct from the Father. Why did the apos- 
 tles make use of this form of expression, if they 
 were Trinitarians ? But the gentleman don't answer 
 these questions. He gets over them with — " this 
 is blasphemy !" 
 
 Will the gentleman answer this plain question : — 
 Why has he not, in one single instance, been able to 
 put his finger on a text which proves the doctrine of 
 the Trinity ? With him all has been inference. He 
 appears to be hard pushed indeed ! 
 
 If we say that Jesus is God, do we not contradict 
 the remarkable facts, that Jesus was tempted — that 
 he hungered — that he wept — that he slept — that he 
 sorrowed — ^that he was weary — and that he finally 
 suffered and died on the cross ? God cannot sufl'er 
 pain — but Jesus suffered the painful death of the 
 cross. God cannot sorrow, but Jesus was despised 
 and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and ac- 
 quainted with grief. God cannot sit at his own 
 right hand, but Jesus is exalted to the right hand of 
 the Majesty on high. Does not this mideniably 
 prove that he is dependent on God for all things, 
 and not the independent, self-existent Jehovah ? If 
 we deny this, do we not rank among those charac- 
 ters who deny the only Lord God, and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? 
 
 "Jesus healed an impotent man on the Sabbath 
 
168 PLUMMER AND M^CALLA's 
 
 day. This so enraged the Jews, that they sought to 
 take away his hfe. He defended his benevolent 
 deed with this observation. « My Father worketh 
 hitherto, and I work.' They immediately accused 
 him of making himself equal with God! He 
 quicldy denied the truth of their accusation, with 
 his strongest affirmation. « Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, the Son can do nothing of himself .^ A more 
 explicit, direct, positive denial, he could not have 
 given. For if the Son can do nothing of himself 
 he surely cannot be equal with God, who can of 
 himself do all things. In substance, therefore, Jesus 
 declared that he had not made himself equal with 
 God; because he could do nothing without his 
 assistance." 
 
 The gentleman cannot squeeze in here that it was 
 Christ's humanity, for the Son himself declares that 
 he has not made himself equal with God. If he 
 says that Jesus is equal with God, does he not con- 
 tradict the declarations of Moses and the Prophets ? 
 By the word God, when applied to the Supreme 
 Being, we understand one self-existent, uncreated, 
 underived, eternal, all-perfect, all-pervading Spirit. 
 If then, you say Jesus is equal to God, you make 
 him a second self-existent, uncreated, underived, 
 eternal, all-perfect, all-pervading Spirit — a second 
 Deity. And yet God declares, " / am God and 
 there is none else." To say this Infinite Being is 
 equal with himself, is perfect nonsense — it is per- 
 version and contradiction. If Jesus is equal with 
 God, he must be ivith him filling immensity ; but 
 God declares, "There is no God tvith me." If we 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 169 
 
 place confidence in the words of the Ahiiighty, we 
 cannot beheve there is any infinite being equal to 
 the one true God, or ivith the one true God, or like 
 the one true God. 
 
 When Jesus was baptised, and the mfinite God 
 declared, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased, hear ye him ;" did he not mean that 
 Christ is a distinct being from God — truly the Son 
 of God ? Jesus has not once hinted that he is equal 
 to the Eternal Jehovah. Does not all this go to 
 prove that he is not God — that he is not equal with 
 the Father ? If he does not possess all these attri- 
 butes, as he explicitly declares he did not, he cannot 
 be equal with the eternal God. Besides these, other 
 passages might be produced. Speaking of himself, 
 he says — " I am the Son of God." If he is the Son 
 he must depend on the Father for his existence. 
 For "the Son can do nothing of himself." 
 
 It is unnecessary to multiply texts. To put the 
 matter at rest, the Son himself declares, " JMy Fa- 
 ther is greater than I," and this cannot be misunder- 
 stood. This is the language of Christ, and he that 
 contradicts Christ and his apostles, is "a deceiver 
 and an antichristP"^ 
 
 * The gentleman first named John v. 7, and of its being of 
 doubtful authority. Yet, he pretends to excuse himself for 
 cominff prepared for bush fighting behind his professedly learn- 
 ed criticisms of the Hebrew, because we gave the criticisms of 
 the learned Trinitarians on John v, 7. 
 
 For the Hebrew plural terminations see Note page 285. 
 15 
 
170 PLT7MMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. M^CALLA. 
 
 I wondered what it was that made my opponent's 
 tongue run so ghb. When I heard him say, " if he 
 be equal with the Father, he must be a second 
 Deity," I thought it was not in the Bible, and, look- 
 ing up, found that he was again reading from that 
 filthy little pamphlet. The Bible was held up by 
 him yesterday, and pronounced to be his creed, 
 every word of which he believed, and yet he now 
 contradicts Christ himself, " who thought it not rob- 
 bery to be equal with God.'' 
 
 My opponent declares that I am not satisfied with 
 one Bible ; but the truth is, it is he who is not satis- 
 fied with one Bible. He must first have Kneeland's 
 Bible, until he turned out rogue and Atheist — then 
 Kinkade's — ^now a sixpenny pamphlet — then Camp- 
 bell's Bible — and next, I suppose, he will go over, 
 with Campbell's right-hand man, Sidney Rigdon, to 
 the Mormon Bible, or with his brother Stone's 
 friends, to the Shaker Bible ! 
 
 Dr. Channing was unwilling to write a creed to- 
 day lest by endless and rapid improvements he should 
 have to write another to-morrow. My opponent 
 and his tribe, labour under the same difficulties in 
 the business of Bible-making. He has given us a 
 string of Unitarians, which, like those mentioned by 
 Mr. Kinkade, have many shades of improvement. 
 They must make their Bible to suit their religion. 
 While they are Trinitarians the Hebrew and Greek 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 171 
 
 Scriptures will do, and our translation, with even 
 John's epistle, will answer ; but his Christian breth- 
 ren, in my native state, get clear of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and along with it the true Scriptures; and 
 after playing upon Unitarian ground av/hile, they had 
 to turn Shakers, and get a Shaker Bible, which had 
 the doctrine that there were two persons in the God- 
 head, the Father and the Mother. Barton W. Stone 
 has not yet gone so far, nor has his brother Alexan- 
 der Campbell yet taken that leap ; but his right-hand 
 man, Sidney Rigdon, has found, that Alexander 
 Campbell's new Bible is not new enough for him 
 — so he has improved, by going over to the Mor- 
 monites, and adoptmg their Bible, which is even an 
 improvement upon the Shakers. Their improve- 
 ments in the way of Bible-making, however, are 
 very much like the improvements which their books 
 and Mr. Kneeland's have made of my speeches on 
 the rostrum, which they have professed to give with 
 exemplary fidelity, while they are mere caricatures, 
 not containmg one sentence of mine. 
 
 We are told by my opponent, that the doctrine of 
 the Trinity was established by the Council of Nice. 
 Yes, just as our rights were established by the Re- 
 volution. From the days of the Apostles, true reli- 
 gion had declined in some places. Arianism began 
 to prevail, and it was time to give it a check. The 
 Council of Nice was convoked to rebuke this heresy, 
 and Arius was summoned before them. His doc- 
 trines and writings were condemned, — the faith of 
 the gospel was declared, and is now preserved in the 
 "Nicene Creed." By this creed we are taught that 
 
172 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 the true God is a Trinity in Unity — Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost — tliree persons in one Divine essence — 
 in whose name we are baptised, and whom we are 
 bound to beheve and worship. This is the plain 
 doctrine which was taught by the Apostles of old, 
 and yet my opponent would have you believe that 
 it originated in the Council of Nice. It is the doc- 
 trme of the holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, dic- 
 tated by the Spirit of the Most High, — not by the 
 devil, nor by my opponent and his gang of galloping 
 bishops ! 
 
 2 Samuel vii. 23. — " And what nation in the earth 
 is lilie thy people, even like Israel, whom God (He- 
 brew, the Divine Ones) went to redeem for a people 
 to hi?nse(f.'^ Here is another passage, which keeps 
 the Spirit of God in view. The Divine Ones (plural) 
 went to redeem them to himself (singular.) The 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have the agency, and 
 yet they are but one God, the Saviour of sinners. 
 
 Proverbs xxx. 3. — " I neither learned wisdom, nor 
 have the knowledge of the Holi/ Ones.^^ 
 
 Hosea xi. 12. — " Ephraim compasseth me about 
 with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit : but 
 Judah yet ruleth with God (Hebrew, the Divine 
 Ones,) and is faithful with the Saints." 
 
 Joshua xxiv. 19. ' " Ye cannot serve the Lord, for 
 he is a holy God" — (Hebrew, " he is a God, who 
 are Holy Ones.") 
 
 Genesis xxxv. 7. — Jacob " built there an altar, and 
 called the place El-beth-el (God, the house of God) 
 because there God (the Divine Ones) were revealed 
 unto him." — Here we have Jacob's vision of the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITr. 173 
 
 ladder, connecting heaven and earth, a figure of that 
 Saviour who united both natures in one person, in 
 such a way that on him the angels of God and the 
 Spirits of the redeemed might ascend and descend 
 and hold fraternal intercourse. This is the fulfilment 
 of that Psalm which says, " JNIercy and truth are met 
 together ; righteousness and peace have kissed each 
 other : Truth shall spring out of the earth, and 
 righteousness shall look down from heaven." Jesus 
 Christ, who is the truth and the Lord our righteous- 
 ness, has true human nature, which he received from 
 the earth, though by miraculous conception, and has 
 true divinity, which looks down from heaven, and 
 is of eternal generation. As he is the true temple 
 of God, or house of God, and God himself, he may 
 well be t^^ified by the " El-beth-el — God, the house 
 of God;" and the reason which is given that the Di- 
 vine Ones were there revealed, should satisfy every 
 disciple of God that there is a phu-ality of persons 
 in the Divme essence. 
 
 Deuteronomy iv. 7. — " For what nation is there so 
 great, who hath God (the Divine Ones) so nigh unto 
 them as the Lord (the one Jehovah) our God {Di- 
 vine Ones) is in all things that we call upon him 
 for?" Here again is a trinity in unity clearly ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 My object has been to prove the affirmative. The 
 unity of the Godhead, essence, and trinity, have 
 been palpably proved, though the question does not 
 call for proof of three persons in the Divine essence, 
 but of only a plurality. 
 
 From one or two remarks in the Hebrew Lexicon, 
 15^ 
 
174 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 my opponent tells you that all Jews are against us 
 on this subject. Yet Roy's Hebrew Lexicon says — 
 " Rabbi Solomon ben Joachi has the following re- 
 markable words in his commentary on the sixth sec- 
 tion of Leviticus : — ' Come and behold the wonder- 
 ful mystery in the word Elohim ; there are three 
 degrees, and each degree distinct and by itself, and 
 yet they are all one, and formed together in one, and 
 are not divided nor separated from each other !' 
 Here is one who acknowledges the Trinity, while 
 talking like a child with his book upside down. 
 
 Josephus, though a Jew, appears to have had 
 strong reasons to believe that Jesus was not a man 
 but the God of heaven. — If we can find God called 
 God in the Scriptures, there is some reason to believe 
 that he is God. IVIy opponent admits that wherever 
 God is called God in the Bible, it is some proof of 
 his divinity ; but when Christ is called God, he tells 
 you that it no more proves him to be God than it 
 jrroves the devil to he God! 
 
 It is said, John v. 22, 23. — " All men should honor 
 the Son as they honor the Father ;" and again, He- 
 brews i. 8, " Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O 
 God, is for ever and ever." In the text Isist quoted, 
 Jesus is called God absolutely, without any qualify- 
 ing term. Denyers of Christ's divmity have been 
 considered false teachers in all ages of the Church. 
 — " He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the 
 Son." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 175 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen Moderators, 
 
 The gentleman proves our argument by saying 
 that those who deny Christ are antichrists. If we 
 say there is no Christ but the only true God, do we 
 not deny him whom God hath made to be both Lord 
 and Christ ? 
 
 But the gentleman has given no proof that the ob- 
 ject of John was to establish the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity. He has said nothing of the mass of testimony 
 which we have produced to show that the oneness 
 of which John speaks is a unity of testimony not of 
 numbers. But I will not multiply words. If the 
 oneness means one being, and that one is Christ him- 
 self, where are the three witnesses? In all the gentle- 
 man says in relation to one God, we go with him ; 
 but when he says Holy Trinity, we have nothing 
 to do with it. It is not in our creed — the Bible — 
 though it is in his Confession of Faith. 
 
 But how is the term God, in its highest sense, to 
 be given to Christ. Christ himself says, " My God ! 
 My God!— My Father! My Father!" Hence the 
 term must be given to Christ in a secondary sense. 
 For such views, our opponent would have you think 
 we are a devil. Of Christ it was said, " He hath a 
 devil, why hear ye him ? If we let him alone he will 
 take away our kingdom. The world is gone after 
 him.'' " God so loved the world, that he gave his 
 
176 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 only begotten Son, that whosoever beheveth m him 
 should not perish but have everlasting life." "For 
 God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be 
 saved." Then God saves through Jesus Christ, God 
 has exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, God 
 appointed Moses, Joshua and others, as Saviours to 
 Israel. These were types of Jesus whom, in the 
 fullness of time, according to promise, God raised up 
 to be a Saviour. Hence the apostle saith, "We have 
 seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be 
 the Saviour of the world." God, therefore, was the 
 only Saviour at last. But we will not multiply ar- 
 guments. 
 
 We will now make a few general remarks on the 
 equality of the Father and Son. Paul says of 
 Christ, Being in the form of God, he thought it 
 not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled him- 
 self and became obedient unto death, wherefore God 
 hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which 
 is above every name, that every tongue should con- 
 fess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the 
 Father. (Phil. ii. 5 — 11.) "Let this mind be in you, 
 which was also in Christ Jesus : who being in the 
 form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God ; but made himself of no reputation, and took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and was made in 
 the likeness of men : and, being found in fashion as 
 a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore 
 God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a 
 name which is above every name ; that at the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 177 
 
 name of Jesus every kiiee should bow, of things in 
 heaven, and things in earth, and thmgs under the 
 earth. And that every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." 
 
 It will be seen at once that the equality is not 
 what the gentleman would have you believe. They 
 are not "co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal;" but 
 the equality means, so far as God has given him 
 equality as a Son. To say that he whom God 
 raised from the dead, and exalted above every name, 
 is co-equal with him who thus exalted him, would 
 be absiud ; for it would be impossible for one co- 
 equal person to exalt another co-equal person ! 
 
 The gentleman's creed, he says, has not been 
 altered. T referred to the Methodist creed, as it was 
 twenty-nine years ago. If I am not mistaken, it 
 could be altered once in four years. Their creed 
 also tells you that " the Scriptures are the only suffi- 
 cient rule of faith and practice, and what is not read 
 therein and cannot be proved thereby is not to be 
 received as an article of faith." But by and by 
 they give you a creed, binding on your consciences, 
 as large as the new Testament. But creeds are going 
 out of fashion. If God has not given us in the Bible 
 sufficient, let us wait until he gives us more. Creeds 
 have given you this discussion — they are at war 
 with the Bible and have always been a curse and 
 vexation to the Church. They are starting-posts for 
 sects, and rallying points for parties. The " ins and 
 the outs" raised the strife — a calm discussion at 
 Nice ensued — a creed was adopted — but the result 
 will be, that as the rod of Aaron ate up the rod of 
 
178 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 the Egyptians, so will the Bible finally eat up all 
 creeds. 
 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith declares that 
 « the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, 
 being very and eternal God, of one substance and 
 equal with the Father, did, when the fuhiess of time 
 was come, take upon him man's nature, and all the 
 essential properties and common infirmities thereof, 
 yet without sin : being conceived by the power of 
 the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of 
 her substance. So that two whole, perfect and dis- 
 tinct natures, the Godhead and manhood, were in- 
 separably joined together in one person, without 
 conversion, composition, or confusion. Which per- 
 son is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the 
 only Mediator between God and man.'' 
 
 What does all this mean ? Adding man to God, 
 in one person, never to be divided ; yet that he died 
 on the cross — and did not die ! nor yet one half, for 
 the whole is but one Christ ! If one God, the God- 
 head, were inseparably united with manhood, where- 
 by they became one person, very God and very man, 
 yet one Christ, then if his Christ died his God was 
 crucified. But if his God was not crucified, then 
 he has no Christ that died. Let the gentleman get 
 out of it if he can. This article of his creed is a 
 tissue of absolute falsehoods and contradictions. It 
 might as well say that the Great Jehovah can die, 
 as that a man can die who is inseparably united with 
 the divine nature in one person. If one co-equal 
 God could die, could not another ? 
 
 We read of Jesus, that he " was born, in Bethle- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 179 
 
 hem of Judea," (Matt. ii. 1, — see, also, Luke ii. 1 — 
 11.) We believe the Scriptural account of his birth. 
 Not that "God was ever born/' 
 
 That " Jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, and 
 in favor with God and man." (Luke ii. 52.) Not 
 that "God increased in wisdom, nor stature, nor in fa- 
 vor with himself and his creatures." 
 
 That " Jesus himself began to be about thirty 
 years of age," (Luke iii. 23,) at the period of his 
 baptism. Not that God ever began to be about 
 thirty years of age. 
 
 That "' Jesus, also, being baptised and praying, the 
 heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended 
 in a bodily shape, like a dove, upon him." (Luke iii. 
 21, 22.) Not that Gob was everbaptised, nor prayed ; 
 northat the Holy Ghost descended upon him. 
 
 That " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost, and with power." (Acts x. 38.) Not 
 that Jesus so anointed himself. 
 
 That " The Father sent the Son, to be the Sa- 
 viour of the world." Not that " God sent himself." 
 
 We read, (words of Christ,) "Now is my soul 
 troubled,^^ (John xii. 27.) We do not read, that the 
 soul of God is nor can be troubled. 
 
 We read, in the prophetic vision of Isaiah, — "He 
 is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, 
 and acquainted with grief." (Isa. liii. 3.) We be- 
 lieve this prediction was accomplished in Jesus of 
 Nazareth. We do not read, "He was a God of 
 sorrows." 
 
 We read, (words of Christ,) " The Father which 
 dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John xiv. 
 
180 
 
 10.) We believe he gave a true account of the Di- 
 vine operation by him. We do not read, that he 
 wrought of, and from himself, alone. 
 
 It is said of Jesus, on a certain occasion, — " He 
 was ASLEEP.'^ (Matt. viii. 24. See, also, Mark iv. 
 38. Luke viii. 23.) Not that God, the Guardian of 
 Israel, either slumbereth or sleepeth. 
 
 We read of Jesus, that he " kneeled down and 
 prayed." (Luke xxii. 41.) We believe he had need 
 of prayer ; that he sought protection, strength, con- 
 solation, and favor of God, because he wanted it, 
 and was conscious that of his " own self," he could 
 "do nothing." (John v. 30.) We do not read, that 
 God kneeled down, and prayed. 
 
 That, " Being in an agony, Christ prayed more 
 earnestly ; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops 
 of blood fallmg down to the ground." (Luke xxii. 
 44.) — We believe he sincerely felt the disgrace and 
 wretchedness of his condition, when he was about to 
 be " reckoned among the transgressors." (Luke xxii. 
 37 ;) and when he who " knew no sm," was to be 
 « made sin, for us." (2 Cor. v. 2 1 .) That his «5ow/" 
 was " exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death," 
 (Matt. xxvi. 38 ;) and that his bloody sweat, and 
 agony of prayer were sincere expressions of the bit- 
 ter " travail of his soul," (Isa. liii. 11.) That he then 
 prayed for what he earnestly desired, if it might be 
 granted. He submitted to the hour of wretchedness, 
 only because Infinite Wisdom had ordained that 
 " thus it must be." (Matt. xxvi. 54.) We do not 
 read that this was one part of Christ praying to an- 
 other part of Christ. We do not believe it. We do 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 181 
 
 not read, that this was God, soUloqiiizing with him- 
 self, and calling it prayer. We do not believe it. 
 We do not read that his agony was only apparent ; 
 that, while the outward appearance, in the flesh of 
 Jesus, was that of excessive anguish, the soul within 
 was untroubled, and unsuffering. We believe the 
 agony was real ; and so intense, that he was almost 
 ready to say, "Father, save me from this hour." 
 (John xii. 27.) Blessed be his name, that he did not 
 say it ; and that he concluded his prayer with the 
 words, " For this cause came I to this hour ; Father, 
 glorify thy name." We do not read, that Christ said 
 these outward words of prayer, and exhibited these 
 outward appearances of distress and ultimate surren- 
 der to the Divine will, in order to make a show, for 
 our example. His prayer is an example ; and happy 
 they who follow it. But, what is true prayer ? The 
 sincere expression of sincere thought and feeling. 
 Words alone, or even associated with a kneehng pos- 
 tiue, with the " face to the earth," or with a bloody 
 sweat, are not prayer. Prayer must exist and breathe 
 in the deep sincerity of the soul; or it exists and 
 breathes not at all. Tell me, then, that the Son of 
 man uttered these outward words of prayer, and 
 exhibited these distressful appearances ; and, yet, that 
 he, at the same time, was God, mitrou bled, unsuffer- 
 ing, and undesiring ; and you, instantly, destroy the 
 sincerity of the Saviour's heart. You leave me a 
 mere "/orm of godliness," without "the power 
 thereof;" an outward shadow, without a spiritual 
 substance. You take away my true Lord, and leave 
 nothing but manhood. We must believe that he 
 16 
 
182 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 was sincerely conscious of anguish, that " he was 
 troubled in spirit,''^ (John xiii. 21,) and that he ex- 
 pressed his thoughts and feelings to God, in the com- 
 plete sincerity of spirit and truth. We cannot, 
 therefore, believe him to have been the very and 
 eternal God. 
 
 On the same occasion, " There appeared an angel 
 unto him from heaven, strengthening him." We do 
 not read, that angels from heaven strengthen God. 
 
 Again, that Jesus "prayed;" that he was often 
 "praying." — We believe, that he needed and wanted 
 what he prayed for ; that his prayer was an acknow- 
 ledgment of his dependence on God for that which 
 he asked ; and that it was a true request, that God 
 would grant it if consistent with wisdom. And, if 
 any one could ever sincerely aver, that he went to 
 God for protection, or looked to him for refuge, 
 Jesus, above all others, could do this. We do not 
 read, that these prayers were soliloquies of God 
 with himself; nor, that Clirist was asking, of God, 
 what he, himself, had all-sufficient power to take or 
 bestow ; nor, that it was one nature of Christ, com- 
 muning with another nature of Christ. — It was 
 HIMSELF that prayed ; and, the self comprehends 
 the whole conscious being. Make it otherwise, and 
 you make a hypocrite of him in whose mouth no 
 guile was ever found. 
 
 Again, " Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave 
 up the ghost." (Mark xv. 37.) We do not read, 
 " God gave up the Ghost." 
 
 It is said in sundry places, " Christ died." Not 
 that "God died." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 183 
 
 "This Jesus hath God raised up." (Acts ii. 32.) 
 Not that Jesus raised himself up, by his own inde- 
 pendent power. 
 
 " Now is Christ risen from the dead.^' (1 Cor. xv. 
 20.) Not that "God is risen from the dead." 
 
 " God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye, (the 
 Jews) have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 
 ii. 36.) Not that Jesus made himself either Lord or 
 Christ. 
 
 " It is Christ which was ordained of God, to be the 
 Judge of quick and dead." (Acts x. 42.) Not that 
 he so ordained himself. 
 
 It is said, " Christ sitteth on the right hand of 
 God." (Coloss. iii. 1.) Not that "God sitteth on the 
 right hand of God." 
 
 We read concerning Christ, that he is entered 
 " into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence 
 of God for us." (Heb. ix. 24.) Not that God ap- 
 pears in the presence of God for us. 
 
 We read, "He is the head of the body, the church ; 
 who is the beginning, the first -horn from the dead?^ 
 (Coloss. i. 18.) — Not that God is the first-born from 
 the dead. 
 
 And that "through him [Christ] we both have 
 access, by one spirit, unto the Father." (Ephes. 
 ii. 18.) — W"e do not read, that he by whom we have 
 access unto God, is God and man in one person 
 united. 
 
 Christ says, " Ye beheve in God, believe also in 
 me." (John xiv. 1.) We desire to obey this pre- 
 cept. Not that " ye believe in God, believe also in 
 me, for I likewise am God." 
 
184 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 The Son said, " Go to my brethren, and say unto 
 them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and 
 to MY God, and your God.^' (John xx. 17.) — Now 
 we beUeve, that the God and Father of Christ, is, 
 also, our Father and God. Not that " I ascend unto 
 MYSELF." We must beheve, he was sincere in his 
 words ; and that he had a Father and God, to whom 
 he did ascend. — Amen. 
 
 (Closed by prayer.) 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 185 
 
 Friday morning, Jan. 21. 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 It was my intention yesterday afternoon to give a 
 scriptural account of the Eternal Sonship, and of 
 antichrist, but my hour had expired before I had en- 
 tered upon the subject of antichrist. 
 
 " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is 
 the Christ ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father 
 and the Son." This condemns as anti-christian, those 
 who inculcate a religion that is opposed to Chris- 
 tianity, or which is a counterfeit Christianity. And 
 among these counterfeits and opposers, which John 
 had chiefly in view, both in his gospel and his gene- 
 ral epistle, we find those who, while pretending to 
 be Christians, denied the divinity of Chi'ist. — There- 
 fore, his gospel begins with a decided assertion of 
 his divinity, and the above passage of the epistle 
 declares, that he who denies the Son as thus held 
 forth, denies the Father also, by which I understand 
 that a denial of a divine Father, a divine Son, and a 
 divine Spirit, three equal persons in one divine es- 
 sence, is an opposer of Christ, and if he profess 
 Christianity it is a counterfeit Christianity. 
 
 " Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not 
 the Father ; but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath 
 the Father also." Observe here, that it is not neces- 
 sary to say in so many words that the Father and 
 the Son are not God, to be antichrist. He denies the 
 16* 
 
186 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 true God who denies what is said of God and of his 
 Son. 
 
 My opponent denies the equality of the Son, and 
 yet admits that Christ has some power, conferred 
 upon him by the Father. Servants do not think it 
 robbery to be servants. The Jews did not think it 
 robbery for Christ to make himself inferior to God ; 
 but they thought it robbery for him to claim an 
 equality. They would not have stoned Jesus for 
 saying that he was inferior to his Father. The Jews 
 always admitted that a son had a right to talk of his 
 inferiority to his father. But inspiration has de- 
 clared that Christ himself thought it not robbery to 
 be equal with God. The Jews knew that he claimed 
 to be the second person in the adorable Trmity — the 
 only begotten Son of God — the supreme Son of God 
 — the equal with God. 
 
 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh 
 hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought 
 the more to kill him, because he not only had bro- 
 ken the sabbath, but said also that God was his 
 Father, making himself equal with God. Then 
 answered Jesus, and said unto them. Verily, verily, 
 I say imto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, 
 but what he seeth the Father do : for what things 
 soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 
 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all 
 things that himself doeth : and he will show him 
 greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For 
 as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth 
 them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 
 For the Father judgeth no man ; but hath committed 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 187 
 
 all judgment unto the Son; that all men should 
 honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He 
 that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father 
 which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that 
 sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into 
 condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, 
 and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
 the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live. For 
 as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
 to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given 
 him authority to execute judgment also, because he 
 is the Son of man. Marvel not at this : for the hour 
 is coming, in the which all that are in the graves 
 shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that 
 have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and 
 they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of 
 damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing : as 
 I hear, I judge ; and my judgment is just : because 
 I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father 
 which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, 
 my witness is not true. There is another that bear- 
 eth witness of me ; and I know that the witness 
 which he witnesseth of me is true.'^ (John v. 17 — 32.) 
 In this passage we have it testified, by divme in- 
 spiration, that Christ claimed God for his Father, in 
 a sense which no other can claim him for a Father. 
 The Jews so understood him, and so Jesus explains it. 
 He teaches that the Son does the same works, and 
 possesses the same knowledge with the Father — that 
 in common with the Father, he raises the dead and 
 
188 PLrMMER AND m'cALLa's 
 
 sits in judgment upon them. And this he declares, 
 in order that equal honor may be given to both. 
 
 When he says that he can do nothing of himself, 
 and bears witness of huuself, we understand it as 
 equivalent to a declaration that his Father is supe- 
 rior to himself — that is, to his humanity. But so is 
 his divine Sonship superior to his humanity, and this 
 Sonship was never declared to be inferior to his Fa- 
 ther. But as the Jews understood him, so the Bible 
 always teaches, that he thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with the Father. 
 
 "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or de- 
 scended? Who hath gathered the wind in his 
 fists ? Who hath bound the waters in a gamient ? 
 Who hath established all the ends of the earth ? 
 What is his name, and what is his Son^s name, if 
 thou canst tell?" (Prov. xxx. 4.) These are ques- 
 tions which the Scriptures can answer. His name 
 is Jehovah the Father, and his Son's name is Jeho- 
 vah the Son ; and thus the name of the one is said 
 to be in the other, because they are alike divine. 
 As we have it in Exodus, (xxiii. 20,) "Behold I 
 send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, 
 and to bring thee into the place which I have pre- 
 pared ; beware of him, and obey his voice ; provoke 
 him not for he will not pardon your transgressions : 
 ybr mi/ nayne is in him.^^ Here he says, my name 
 is in him, or as an eminent Hebrew lexicographer 
 says: ^^ my nature is in him.^^ This community 
 of name may also be found in Isaiah ix. 6, where 
 he says — " Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son 
 is given — and the government shall be upon his 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 189 
 
 shoulder — and he shall be called Wonderful, Coun- 
 sellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the 
 Prince of Peace.'' Here the name of "Mighty- 
 God," which belongs to the first person, is given to 
 the second also ; and the name of " Everlasting Fa- 
 ther," which belongs to the first person, is given to 
 the second also, not as the Patripassions would ex- 
 plam it, but because in the Scriptures each person 
 of the adorable Trinity is represented as the Father 
 of the Church. 
 
 The knowledge of His name, and of his Son's 
 name, Moses was anxious to obtain, when he had a 
 sight of Him, and a conversation with Him in the 
 burning bush, in the land of Midian. And as my 
 opponent has made frequent and mournful com- 
 plaints of my quoting isolated texts, we will here 
 quote more largely, a portion of Scripture, in which 
 Mr. Kinkade admits that the glorious one who 
 dwelt in the bush was Jesus Christ. 
 
 " And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him 
 in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush : and 
 he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, 
 and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, 
 I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why 
 the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw 
 that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out 
 of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. 
 And he said. Here am I. And he said, Draw not 
 nigh hither ; put off" thy shoes from off" thy feet, for 
 the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 
 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the 
 God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 
1^0 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Jacob. And Moses hid his face ; for he was afraid 
 to look upon God. And the Lord said, I have 
 surely seen the affliction of my people which are in 
 Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their 
 task-masters ; for I know their sorrows ; and I am 
 come down to deliver them out of the hand of 
 the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that 
 land unto a good land and a large, mito a land flow- 
 ing with milk and honey ; unto the place of the 
 Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and 
 the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 
 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the childi'en of 
 Israel is come unto me : and I have also seen the 
 oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 
 Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto 
 Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people, 
 the children of Israel, out of Egypt. And Moses 
 said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto 
 Pharoah, and that I should bring forth the children 
 of Israel out of Egypt ? And he said. Certainly I 
 will be with thee : and this shall be a token unto 
 thee, that I have sent thee ; When thou has brought 
 forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God 
 upon this mountain. And Moses said unto God, 
 Behold, when I come unto the childi'en of Israel, 
 and shall say unto them. The God of your fathers 
 hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, 
 \Miat is his name ? what shall I say unto them ? 
 And God said mito Moses, I AM THAT I AM ; 
 and he said. Thus shalt thou say unto the children 
 of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God 
 said, moreover, unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say 
 unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 191 
 
 fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
 the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you : this is my 
 name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all 
 generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel to- 
 gether, and say unto them, The Lord God of your 
 fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, 
 appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, 
 and seen that which is done to you in Egypt : And 
 I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction 
 of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the 
 Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and 
 the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing 
 with milk and honey. And they shall hearken to 
 thy voice : and thou shalt come, thou and the elders 
 of Israel, unto the king of Egypt ; and ye shall say 
 unto him. The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met 
 with us : and now let us go, Ave beseech thee, three 
 days' journey into the wilderness, that we may 
 sacrifice to the Lord our God.'' (Ex. iii. 2 — 18.) 
 
 Here, in the fifth verse, the glorious personage 
 requires Moses to give him the worship never given 
 to a mere creature. In the sixth verse, he assumes 
 the title of God, even the true and eternal God of 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the whole passage, 
 he claims the honor due to the God of Creation, 
 Providence and Redemption, — speaks of himself as 
 the head of the church, the vindicator of their wrongs, 
 and the author of their blessings — and assumes the 
 title "I am that I am.." If the true and Eternal 
 God be any where revealed in the Scriptures, it is in 
 this passage — it is where he made himself known to 
 Moses in the bush. Yet Mr. Kinkade confesses that 
 this God was Christ — wherefore he must be the tme 
 
192 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 and Eternal God, and he that denies it under a 
 Christian name, denies the Father, is au enemy to 
 God, and a comiterfeit Christian. 
 
 " His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, 
 the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince 
 of Peace." " My nature is in him'^^ — the nature 
 of the Most High God and not of an imaginary 
 being. It was He who was m the Councils of 
 Eternity — not my opponent ! What are we, in com- 
 parison, but worms of the dust? But when we pre- 
 sume to find fault with this Mighty God, we are no 
 longer worms, but devils ! 
 
 The terms "Supreme," "Highest," or "Most 
 High" God, are found in as great purity in the ori- 
 gmal, when applied to the Son as to the Father. 
 Christ also receives in the Holy Scriptures, the other 
 names and titles given to the Supreme and Eternal 
 God — such as the incommunicable name Jehovah, 
 the Angel Jehovah, Jehovah of Hosts ; the Alpha 
 and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning 
 and the Ending, the Almighty, the Only Divine Po- 
 tentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Son 
 of God, God, Lord and God, the Great God, the 
 Mighty God, the True and Eternal God, the Only 
 Wise God. The omnipresence, omnipotence, omni- 
 science, eternity, and immutability of the Father, are 
 all in the Scriptures ascribed to the Son. The works 
 also that belong to the Father belong to the Son : 
 many passages throughout all Scripture, show that 
 Jesus is the author of Creation, Providence and Re- 
 demption. The Son and the Spirit both receive Di- 
 vme honors and worship ; and we are required to 
 honor and worship the second and third persons in 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 193 
 
 the adorable Trinity as we honor and worship the 
 Father. My opponent and his Christians profess to 
 worship Christ, but give him no higher dignity than 
 to say that he is the ''first heing that God created^ 
 These Christians have the same excuses for their 
 worship of an annointed creature, that the Papists 
 have for their idolatry. But the truth is, that the 
 idolatry of the Papists is in some thmgs far less gross 
 than that of the " Christians." Even the supreme 
 object of Christian worship is incomparably inferior 
 to some of the Popish saints and angels, for they are 
 spiritual beings ; whereas the Christian Jupiter is a 
 material being, having body, parts and passions, and 
 in the shape of a man. Moreover, some of the 
 Popish gods have a real, though subordinate exist- 
 ence ; whereas the " Christian" Jove has no exist- 
 ence, except in the fleeting fancy of a few feeble and 
 fickle fanatics. 
 
 Mr. Kinkade says, page 151, that the titles Lord 
 and Michael, are only different titles and names 
 given to the same person, that is, to Christ. " Mi- 
 chael" is one of oiu: proofs — literally, "who is like 
 God, or as God, or equal to God." But this Michael, 
 as revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ, called 
 God his Father in such a way as to make himself 
 equal with God, and his Spirit declares that he did 
 not think it robbery to be equal with God, and that 
 men should honor him as they honor the Father. 
 
 Beware how you let the blasphemies of his ene- 
 mies soil your souls : how you bow down to their 
 false Gods — the idolatrous fancies and fabrications of 
 old hunters and devils. 
 
 17 
 
194 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 
 PRAYER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 
 It is a pleasure to approach these solemn and 
 deeply mterestmg topics. Inquiries after divine 
 truth should always be made with calmness and 
 sincerity, as in the presence of God. 
 
 There are two or three things in the gentleman's 
 last speech which require notice. Isaiah ix. 6, "For 
 unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." 
 Who gave him? "And his name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever- 
 lasting Father, the Prince of Peace/' Who was to 
 caU him so ? "And the government shall be upon his 
 shoulder." Who should give it to him ? Why did 
 not the gentleman read the whole of the text ? We 
 might follow him for a month, if he is to give us 
 only detached portions of Scripture, which, taken in 
 connection with the rest of the chapter, show a 
 meaning entirely different from that which he attach- 
 es to them. The whole passage reads — " Of the in- 
 crease of his government and peace there shall be 
 no end ; upon the throne of David and upon his 
 kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judg- 
 ment and with justice from henceforth even for ever: 
 The zeal of the Lord of Hosts ivill perform this .'" 
 
 What ! the God of Israel to be set on the throne 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 195 
 
 of David to order and establish it ? But the gentle- 
 man will tell you that it is blasphemy to ask such 
 questions ; and this is all the reply which he makes 
 to these important inquiries ! 
 
 We are inclined to think that he knew, if he read 
 the whole passage, that it would expose the absur- 
 dity of his reasoning. 
 
 I told you what followed in that notable passage 
 from Isaiah would explain its true meaning. He 
 who gave the Son and called him the " Everlasting 
 Father" is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The Father has exalted him to his own 
 right hand, next in authority to himself and " given 
 him a name above every name." When we say he 
 is "co-equal with the Father," we say the Father is 
 not greater than the Son, and make Jesus a liar. 
 Did ever the Son say, I am the Father Almighty ? 
 
 One passage the gentleman will not attempt to 
 root out. In praying to his Father the Son said, 
 "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the 
 only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
 sent." 
 
 One more passage — "Holy Father, thy will and 
 not mine be done." Was it humanity or the eternal 
 God that here prayed ? Did the Father ever pray 
 to himself? Jesus said, "All power is given unto 
 me in heaven and in earth; go ye therefore and 
 teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 The Son is here referred to as next in authority to 
 the Father. 
 
 We now pass to the Holy Spirit. Our Trinitarian 
 
196 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 brother seems to have forgotten that there is any- 
 Holy Spirit at all — we have not had one word from 
 him on that subject. We might say, as they did in 
 the days of the apostles, " We have not so much as 
 heard if there be any Holy Ghost." Where is the 
 Holy Ghost called a person or bemg distinct from 
 God ? Give us passages that read plain — we have 
 given you scores, expressive of our sentiments, with- 
 out changing the phraseology of Scripture. If 
 we believe not the record God has given, Jolin says 
 we make God a liar ! — The term " person" is never 
 applied to the Holy Ghost in the whole book, though 
 the Holy Spirit is frequently personified as the Com- 
 forter. Read Paul's personification of sin, death 
 and charity, (Rom. v. 14, 17. 1 Cor. xv. 26, 55. 
 Ch. xiii.) and Solomon on Wisdom, (Prov. viii.) It 
 is scores of tmies spoken of as "the Spirit of the 
 Lord," "thy Spirit," "the Spirit of God," and 
 "his Spirit." "Know ye not," says Paul, (1 Cor. 
 vi. 19,) "that your body is the temple of the Holy 
 Ghost?" That by the Holi/ Ghost is here meant 
 God himself, appears from two or three parallel 
 passages, (1 Cor. iii. 16.) "Know ye not that ye 
 are the temple of God?'' (2 Cor. vi. 16.) "Ye 
 are the temple of the livmg God, as God hath said, 
 I will dwell in them, and walk in them." - Similar 
 examples of the use of the spirit of God for the 
 power of God, might be multiplied. One more only 
 shall be mentioned. (2 Cor. iii. 3.) " Ye are the 
 epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with 
 ink, but with the spirit of the living God ; not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 197 
 
 The allusion in this text is to the two tables re- 
 ceived by Moses on jNIount Sinai, on which were 
 written the ten commandments. Now turning to 
 the account of this transaction in Exodus and Deu- 
 teronomy, (Ex. xxxi. 18. Deut. ix. 10,) we find 
 them there declared to be written with the finger 
 of God. The apostle therefore probably meant the 
 same thing, when he said, written by the Spi?^it of 
 God. Each was intended to express an effect pro- 
 duced supernaturally, by the power of God himself." 
 Suppose the Spirit was spoken of scores of times in 
 the Scriptures as a person or being distinct from 
 God, and never as the Spirit of God, what would 
 you think if we should assert — that it was the Spirit 
 of a person, and not a person distinct from God? 
 We repeat, the Spirit is not called a person distinct 
 from God in all the Scriptures. It is called the power, 
 breath, arm, hand, and finger of God, but can it 
 be supposed that the power, breath, arm, hand and 
 finger of God refer to a being or person distinct from 
 God himself? The apostles " went forth preaching 
 the word with power or gifts of the Holy Ghost, God 
 working with them to will and to do of his own 
 good pleasure." Jesus says in one place, " I cast out 
 devils by the finger of God ;" — in another, '^ I cast 
 out devils by the power of God;" and in another, 
 " I cast out devils by the Spirit of God." Now do 
 not all these expressions show that he meant a di- 
 vine influence from God, and not another being ? 
 
 The gentleman has quoted Rev. i. 8. "I am Al- 
 pha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith 
 the Lord, which is and which was, and which is to 
 17* 
 
198 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 come, the Almighty.^^ The term Ahnighty is never 
 appUed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, and the 
 connection in this chapter will show that it does not 
 here refer to him. In the first verse, you have the 
 revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave mito 
 him ; in the second verse, the word of God and the 
 testimony of Jesus Christ: and m the fourth and 
 fifth verses, you have the salutation, " Grace be unto 
 you and peace from him which is, and which was, 
 and which is to come, and from Jesus Christ who is 
 the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the 
 dead." Here you first have Christ and God, second 
 God and Jesus Christ, and third, " From him which 
 is, and which was, and which is to come," and " Je- 
 sus Christ the first begotten of the dead." Now 
 does not the " which is, and which was, and which is 
 to come, the Almighty," in the eighth verse, mean 
 the same being that is called " the which is, and which 
 was, and which is to come," m the fourth verse ? or 
 does it mean him that is here spoken of in contra- 
 distinction to the Almighty ? Read the whole con- 
 nection and if you do not come to the former con- 
 clusion, you must believe that the Mmighty was 
 the " first begotten from the dead." 
 
 The gentleman has given a string of titles, as 
 applicable to Christ. The faithful witness himself 
 hath said, that he received his life and power from 
 the Father; and all the names and titles that are 
 applied to him in the Scriptures, are said to be 
 given to him by the Father, There are many ex- 
 pressions in Scripture applied to the Father, which 
 are never applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. It is 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 199 
 
 said that "the head of Christ is God" — that God is 
 "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'' — 
 "the invisible God" — "the King eternal, immortal 
 and invisible" — "the only wise God" — "whose 
 name alone is Jehovah, the Most High over all the 
 earth." Unto Mary it was said, " The power of 
 the Highest shall come upon thee, therefore that 
 holy thmg which shall be bom of thee shall be called 
 the Son of God" — but will it be said that God 
 Almighty was Mary's child ? Elizabeth saluted 
 Mary as the Mother of my Lord. Does this mean 
 Jehovah? Sarah Called Abraham "My Lord!" 
 but did she mean Jehovah? Again David says, 
 " The Lord said unto my Lord !" but does that 
 mean two Jehovahs ? 
 
 The gentleman speaks of two natures. His Con- 
 fession of Faith tells us in regard to those two na- 
 tures, that they were inseparably joined together in 
 one person — very God and very man, yet one 
 Christ. This we do not believe ; because our 
 Christ is the " Mediator between God and men !" 
 
 The gentleman says I have endeavored to get into 
 the Councils of the Most High. The remark is un- 
 fortunate for him. It is his creed that professes to 
 have got behind the curtain, and revealed the secret 
 will of the Almighty. We tell you, we are bound 
 by this word — the word of God — and this only, as 
 the revelation of God's will. 
 
 The gentleman has also called me infernal. But 
 calling me so don't make me so. If he should de- 
 clare that Plummer is drunk, it would not make him 
 stagger. 
 
SOO PLUMMER AND M'CALLA's 
 
 The gentleman has gone mto Hebrew to prove a 
 plurality of persons in the Divine Essence, and 
 would have us believe, that if rightly understood, 
 they prove the doctrine for which he is contending. 
 He has again galloped over the Alleghanies, and as 
 he seems to have feared that the Campbells were 
 coming — the Campbells would be upon him — let 
 him now clear himself of the Campbells. As he has 
 made a great display of his knowledge of the origi- 
 nal Scriptures, I will read a passage from one of the 
 speeches of Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Mr. 
 M'Calla on " Christian Baptism.'' 
 
 "Mr. M'Calla, (he says,) conscious of his own in- 
 competency to make a single criticism, or to defend 
 one of his own, shrewdly considered if he could 
 work upon my modesty, so as to make me ashamed 
 to even mention a Greek word, he would then 
 escape exposure, for I am told he has affected to be 
 a very profound linguist even in this very place; 
 and on a certain occasion defamed the illiterate 
 Baptists. But the fact is this, Mr. M. is unac- 
 quainted v/ith Greek, and I now say he cannot, in 
 my opinion, read one chapter in the Septuagint, if 
 his life depended on it. Here it lies before me, and 
 he can easily have an opportunity of convincing 
 both you and me that I am mistaken. Until this is 
 done, or until he makes and defends one criticism 
 of his own, we shall retain this opinion which, in- 
 deed, I am convinced is well-founded. It matters 
 not, however, seeing he details the criticisms of 
 others who, he says, are the best critics in the 
 world, and a refutation of their criticisms is more 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE OX THE TRIMTY. 201 
 
 important than a refutation of his. This I should 
 have passed over without notice, had not his re- 
 peated exclamations rendered it necessary.'^ 
 
 The gentleman also seems to have an inveterate 
 antipathy to the " Christians'' over the Alleghanies. 
 Why is this ? I would ask him if he did not once 
 have a discussion with a " Christian" preacher which 
 resulted in his defeat ? Was he not subsequently 
 prosecuted for calumniatmg that preacher, and does 
 he not now stand recorded as a convicted libeller ? 
 
 In reference to the gentleman's allusion to weavers 
 and shoemakers, I would ask him, are not some of 
 the brightest stars in the constellations of our na- 
 tional horizon mechanics ? The great Jehovah him- 
 self is the greatest mechanic of all. The gentleman 
 says his words were never intended to convey an 
 expression of contempt for mechanics. But does 
 that wipe off his unhandsome statements and in- 
 sinuations ? 
 
 God alone must judge who is right. I ask pro- 
 fessors and all others to examine for themselves and 
 embrace the tRith. If we cannot all see alike, let 
 us love and pray one for another, with Christian for- 
 bearance. If we are so fortunate as to obtain the 
 truth, what have we that we have not received? 
 Professions and creeds are nothing. God will reward 
 us all according to our deeds. We would indulge 
 no malice. If we have not the truth to sustain us, 
 we wish to be convinced. Give us light. Give us 
 the law and the testimony — " if they speak not (says 
 the prophet) according to this word, it is because 
 there is no light in them !" 
 
202 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 If there had been less of that about mechanics, I 
 should not again have referred to the subject. My 
 remark about weavers and shoemakers was doubt- 
 less miderstood by this audience as it was intended, 
 to be ironical. I have never in my life spoken con- 
 temptuously of mechanics. I once had a beloved elder 
 who was a shoemaker, and I was the means of put- 
 ting him mto the eldership. I have a workshop at 
 home of my own, and this box which I hold in my 
 hand was made by myself. I would rather have the 
 acquaintance of many an honest, conscientious me- 
 chanic, than of Queen Victoria herself When I 
 was a little boy in Kentucky, I was much among the 
 slaves, and was taught to mend harness, and to make 
 myself useful in a variety of ways. I was a sort of 
 quack in mechanics, as my opponent is in medicine. 
 And yet I am accused by him of speaking contemp- 
 tuously of working men. Nothing was farther from 
 my mind, and he knows it just as well as he knows 
 that he is alive ! 
 
 And now as to this libel suit in Kentucky. In my 
 discussion with Mr. Lane at Milford, a Mr. Goff was 
 one of the Unitarian Moderators. This Mr. Goff 
 published what he professed to call a faithful report 
 of the discussion, being a dirty little pamphlet of some 
 seventy-five pages, as meager as Pharaoh's seven 
 years of famine. The thirty-eight speeches really 
 spoken, occupied nineteen hours in the delivery ; but 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 203 
 
 to read Mr. QofPs faithful report of facts and argu- 
 ments, at a speaking speed, would require but one 
 hour and a half at the outside. I think that Mr. 
 Goff has been here during this discussion, and if so, 
 I should like to get a sight of him. Well, this same 
 story about the libel, was introduced by Mr. Lane 
 into the discussion at Milford. I gave the true ver- 
 sion then, and I will endeavor to repeat the circum- 
 stances now. Mr. Goff was very careful that the 
 story should not appear in his faithful report. 
 
 In the Western States we often worship God as 
 our Fathers did, in the open air. At the place 
 where this libel suit origmated, the " Christians'' had 
 a stone chm-ch, but the Presbyterians were destitute, 
 and conducted their religious services under a tempo- 
 rary shed constructed of rough boards. The " Chris- 
 tians^^ tore down this shed ; for which they were 
 prosecuted by the Presbyterians, and a verdict of 
 twenty-four dollars recovered. One of the " Chris- 
 tian" preachers was remarkably officious in this con- 
 troversy, and told some most outrageous falsehoods. 
 In a pamphlet subsequently published by me, I stated 
 that he was a liar. For this he brought a suit 
 against me, to recover the price of his character. 
 On the trial I proved all that I had stated, and, 
 though you know it is a principle of law that ^' the 
 greater the truth the greater the libel," the jury were 
 unable to agree, and were discharged. He then 
 tried it again on the other side of the river, and after 
 much difficulty and hesitation on the part of the 
 jurors, they at length agreed to render a verdict in his 
 favor. And what do you think that verdict was ? 
 
204 
 
 For the old boards, you will recollect, the Presbyte- 
 rians recovered twenty-four dollars. " Well," you 
 will ask, "was it one thousand dollars?" No. 
 " Five-hundred dollars ?" No. " One hundred ?" 
 No! " Fifty dollars ?" No! "Well, the price of 
 the old boards ?" No — not even that ! But I will 
 tell you what it was — it was oiie cent ! That was 
 the price at which a jury, composed principally of 
 his friends, estimated the character of a " Christian" 
 minister, who had been proved guilty of lying. 
 There were no half cents then, or the verdict might 
 have been still less. But even at this estimate, the 
 old boards would have paid for the characters of 
 tioenty-four hundred such " Christian" ministers as 
 this brother of Mr. Plummer. 
 
 But Mr. Campbell doubted my knowledge of 
 Greek, and required me to give specimens before the 
 audience, by occupying my time and making myself 
 appear contemptible and ridiculous. And because I 
 would not consent to be led into a foolish trap, he 
 insisted upon my ignorance of the original Scrip- 
 tures. My laiowledge of the languages was not the 
 subject of discussion. I never boasted there, nor 
 have I boasted here, of my learning. I have been 
 as far north as Quebec, as far south as Texas, but 
 have never felt disposed to play the pedant. Nor 
 was I desirous to render myself ridiculous, by pub- 
 licly reading a chapter of Greek for the gratification 
 of " Bishop" Campbell. In my younger days I had 
 a beloved uncle who was very fond of making sport 
 among his friends. He once told me that a German 
 acquaintance had one day asked him if he had a 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 205 
 
 knowledge of the German Bible, at the same time 
 turning to the third chapter of John, and asking him 
 to read the chapter. My uncle knew it by memory, 
 and appeared to translate it very fluently into our 
 language, though he knew not a word of the Ger- 
 man ! To test my knowledge of the Greek, my 
 uncle, at the time he related this anecdote, asked me 
 to find the same chapter in the Greek Testament, 
 and give him the English of it, which I did with 
 such fluency that he soon stopped me, saying he 
 thought I knew it by memory too, and was playing 
 him the same trick that he had played the German. 
 Yet if I were the most perfect scholar on earth, that 
 would not prove my position, nor would my igno- 
 rance refute it. Nor would either learning or igno- 
 rance excuse a man for the abominable folly of leav- 
 ing the subject of discussion to read the dead lan- 
 guages for the amusement of the audience. 
 
 My opponent is not satisfied with my knowledge 
 of the original Scriptures, and has endeavored to ex- 
 plain them himself. He has intimated that Abraham 
 is called Jehovah in the Hebrew. He first said Lord, 
 but in explaining said Jehovah. His ignorance of 
 the language may make him appear more excusable 
 for this gross and dreadful misstatement. Abraham 
 is never called Jehovah. God expressly declares, 
 that this is a name which he will not give to another, 
 although it is given to Jesus Christ and to the Holy 
 Spirit ; because, although they are diflerent, they are 
 not another but the same divine being. The title 
 applied to Abraham, is not the incommunicable name 
 Jehovah, but it is Adoni, a name which is given to 
 IS 
 
206 
 
 the Holy Trinity and to creatures also. In the be- 
 ginning of the 110th Psalm, Jehovah said to Adoni, 
 " Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies 
 thy footstool.'^ This word occurs often in the prophe- 
 ciesof Ezekieljinour translation of which the title Lord 
 God occurs with unparalleled frequency. I believe 
 that the original of every such case is Adoni Jehovah. 
 
 Campbell of Aberdeen has given this translation : 
 " Hear, Israel, Jehovah is one God — Jehovah is 
 one." Here Jehovah is in the singular, for the Di- 
 vine essence is one, and it is connected with another 
 name in the plural, which makes it read substan- 
 tially, Jehovah is our Divine Ones, for there is a plu- 
 rality of persons, yet Jehovah is one, for there is but 
 one God. 
 
 In Hosea xii. 5, it is said, " Jehovah is my memo- 
 rial.'* Exodus iii. 15, "This [Jehovah] is my name 
 for ever, and my memorial unto all generations." 
 Psalm Ixxxiii. IS, " Thou whose name alone is Je- 
 hovah art the Most High over all the earth." Isaiah 
 xlii. 8, " I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my 
 glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to 
 graven images." Zechariah xiv. 9, "And Jehovah 
 shall be King over all the earth : in that day shall 
 there be one Jehovah, and his name one." These 
 are passages to show that this great and glorious 
 name is given to none but one Supreme and Eternal 
 God. Yet it is in numerous Scriptures given to three 
 persons, sometimes miitedly and sometimes distinctly. 
 
 In Zechariah iii. 1—4, it is said, "And he showed 
 me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the 
 Angel of the Lord [Jehovah,] and Satan standing at 
 his right hand to revile him. And the Lord [Jeho- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 207 
 
 vah] said unto Satan, the Lord [Jehovah] rebuke 
 thee, Satan, even the Lord [Jehovah] that hath 
 chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee ; is not this a brand 
 phicked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed 
 with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 
 And he answered and spoke unto those who stood 
 before him, saying, take away the filthy garments 
 from him. And unto him he said, behold I have 
 caused thine iniquity to pass from thee." Kinkade, 
 page 151, says of this passage, "Here the very Lord 
 that cleansed Joshua from this iniquity, is called an 
 Angel. If this Lord- Angel is not the Lord Jesus, 
 who can he be ?" Thus we here have the admission 
 of a "Christian" preacher, that Jesus is the Angel- 
 Jehovah, and justly claims the incommunicable name 
 of the Supreme, which shows that there is a plurality 
 of persons in the one Divine essence. 
 
 In Acts xiii. 39, it is said, "By him [Christ] all 
 that believe are justified from all things;" which 
 plainly proves Christ to be the Jehovah, for in Isaiah 
 xlv. 24, 25, it is written, " Surely shall one say, in 
 Jehovah have I righteousness and strength : even to 
 him shall men come, and all that are incensed against 
 him shall be ashamed : In Jehovah shall all the seed 
 of Israel be justified, and shall glory." And again, 
 in Jeremiah xxiii. 6, " This is his name whereby he 
 shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness." 
 
 So of the Spirit, Ezekiel viii. 1, 3, "The hand of 
 Adoni Jehovah fell then upon me ; and he put forth 
 the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of mine 
 hair, and the spirit lifted me up between the earth 
 and the heavens, and brought me in the visions of 
 God to Jerusalem." In one part of this passage the 
 
208 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 person who took him up is called the spirit. Two 
 hnes before that this same person is called Adoni 
 Jehovah^ a name incommmiicable to any creatm'e, 
 and which therefore points out the Spirit as the Su- 
 preme and Eternal God. 
 
 In Genesis xlviii. 15, 16, it is said of Jacob, "And 
 he blessed Joseph, and said, God before whom my 
 fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which 
 fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which 
 redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." Kin- 
 kade, page 145, says, " Here Jacob calls his redeemer 
 and supporter an Angel, and then prays to that 
 Angel to bless his grandsons." At page 151, it has 
 been shown that he admits the Angel-Jehovah spo- 
 ken of m Zechariah iii. 1, 4, to be the Lord Jesus; 
 and at page 143, he admits the same concerning Ex- 
 odus xxiii. 20, 22, "Behold I send an Angel before 
 thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into 
 the place which I have prepared : beware of him 
 and obey his voice ; provoke him not, for he will 
 not pardon your transgressions ; for my name is in 
 him : but if thou shalt mdeed obey his voice, and do 
 all that / speak, then I will be an enemy unto thy 
 enemies, and an adversary unto thy adversaries." 
 The same is admitted by Kinkade, page 143, of 
 Exodus iii. 2, 18, and at page 147, of Hosea xii. 3, 
 5. In the passage quoted from Genesis (xlvih. 15, 16,) 
 as in the New Testament, the benediction of the 
 Holy Trinity is solemnly and prayerfully invoked by 
 an inspired man. Paul says — "The grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the 
 communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. 
 Amen." This is an act of worship paid to three 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 209 
 
 persons in one God ; and so is the administration of 
 baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost. And this worship is given to a 
 Trinity in heaven and on earth, in the language of 
 the Seraphim, praising the thrice Holy Lord God 
 Almighty, which was and is and is to come. 
 
 When the Angel Jehovah spoke to Moses in the 
 burning bush (Exodus iii. 2, 18.) admitted by Kin- 
 kade to be the Lord Jesus Christ, Moses did not lift 
 his eyes and complain that he had not talked plain 
 enough to him ; but he " hid his face, for he was 
 afraid to look upon God." And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of 
 Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." 
 Will this do for a title of the Eternal Father ? And 
 the Lord said, "I have seen the affliction of my 
 people which are in Egypt." Wliose people are 
 they ? And the Lord said unto Moses, " / will be 
 with thee ; and this shall be a token unto thee : 
 When thou hast brought 'forth the people out of 
 Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." The 
 same divine person says, (Matt, xviii. 20.) ^« Where 
 two or three are gathered together in my name, there 
 am I in the midst of them.^^ In the ISth verse 
 of this 3d chapter of Exodus, the same Angel Jeho- 
 vah declares himself to be the " Lord God of the 
 Hebrews." Mr. Kinkade, the brother of my oppo- 
 nent, admits it to be the Lord Jesus who is here 
 speaking, and yet denies his divinity. That man 
 who denies the Father and the Son, shall be without 
 a drop of water to all eternity. " This is a deceiver 
 and an antichrist." 
 
 18* 
 
210 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 Mr, Chairman^ Ladies and Gentlemen^ 
 
 I did not say before, that Abraham was Jehovah, 
 or that when Sarah called Abraham Lord, she meant 
 that he was Jehovah. For Jehovah " made Jesus 
 to be both Lord and Christ.^' Jesus said also, that 
 David in Spirit called him Lord : " The Lord said 
 unto TYiy Lord, sit thou on my right hand." Are 
 we here to understand that there are two Jehovahs ? 
 
 The gentleman says the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 taught in the law and the prophets. Did the Jews 
 so understand it ? No. 
 
 The gentleman says he never plays the pedant. 
 In the presence of Mr. Campbell he was accused of 
 this, but declined giving him satisfaction. He now 
 attempts to instruct us in Hebrew, and to prove from 
 a number of passages cited, a plurality of persons in 
 Jehovah. I cannot think him correct. The term 
 God, is used variously in the Scriptures. We will 
 now inquire for the sense in which he who has a God 
 and Father, is called God. The Encyclopedia, in rela- 
 tion to this subject, says : " The Hebrew word ELO- 
 HIM, generally translated God, in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; signifies, Strength, Power, Authority, and 
 Dominion, conveying the idea of binding or restrain- 
 ing by sanctions, and of ruling and judging by laws. 
 It is to be observed, however, that angels, princes, 
 great men, Judges, and even false gods, are some- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 211 
 
 times called by this name. The sequel of the dis- 
 course is what assists us in judging rightly concern- 
 ing the true meaning of this word. It is the same 
 as Eloha. One is the singular, the other is the plu- 
 ral. Nevertheless Elohim is often construed in the 
 singular number, particularly when the true God is 
 spoken of : but when false gods are spoken of, it is 
 construed rather in the plural. See Exodus xxxii. 
 3, 4. ' And all the people brake off the golden 
 earings which were in their ears, and brought them 
 unto Aaron, and he received them at their hand, and 
 fasliioned IT with a graving tool, after he had made 
 it a molten calf: and they said, these be thy gods, 
 Israel.' The Greeks and Latins, did not mean 
 by the name God, an all perfect being, whereof eter- 
 nity, infinity, omnipresence, &c. were essential attri- 
 butes : with them, the word only implied an excellent 
 and superior nature ; and accordingly they give the 
 appellation gods to all beings of a rank or class 
 higher and more perfect than that of men ; and espe- 
 cially to those who were inferior agents in the Divine 
 administration, all subject to the one Supreme," 
 
 1 have to add, that Paul tells of a certain man of 
 sin, (2 Thess.ii. 3,4.) to be "revealed, the son of per- 
 dition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all 
 that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, 
 a;s God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing him- 
 self that he is God." Does the term God here mean 
 a trinity of sons of perdition ? 
 
 And " the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made 
 thee a God unto Pharaoh." (Ex. vii. 1.) Did he 
 make him a Trinity of Gods } 
 
212 PtUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 We will now give you a few irrefutable passages 
 in support of our doctrine. 
 
 " To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ 
 for ever. Amen." Rom. xvi. 27. 
 
 " Unto God be glory in the church by Christ Je- 
 su^, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." 
 Ephes. iii. 21. 
 
 " Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, 
 the ONLY WISE God, be honor and glory, for ever 
 and ever." 1 Tim. i. 17. 
 
 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lo?^d 
 Jesus Christ.'' 1 Pet. i. 3. 
 
 " Grace be to you, and peace from God our Father 
 and from the Lord Jesus Christ.'' Eph. i. 2. 
 
 " The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father 
 of glory, give unto you the spirit of wisdom." Eph. 
 i. 17. 
 
 " Grace be with you, mercy, and peace from God 
 the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son 
 of the Father, in truth and love." 2 John 3. 
 
 " The God of all grace, who hath called us unto 
 his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, make you perfect. 
 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. 
 Amen." 1 Peter v. 10. 
 
 " Jesus answered and said, I thank thee Father, 
 Lord of Heaven and earth !" Matt. xi. 25. 
 
 John XX. 1 7. " Jesus saith unto her, touch me 
 not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father ; but 
 go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend 
 unto MY Father and your Father to my God and 
 your God !" 
 
 Here our Lord Jesus Christ asserts to his brethren, 
 that their God and Father is his God and Father. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 213 
 
 Isaiah xliv. 6. " Thus saith the Lord the King of 
 Israel, and his (Israel's) Redeemer the Lord of 
 hosts : I am the first, and I am the last, and besides 
 ME there is no God.'' 
 
 Isaiah xlv. 5. " I am the Lord, and there is none 
 ELSE : there is no God besides me." 
 
 Isaiah xlvi. 9. " I am God, and there is none else : 
 I am God, and there is none like me." 
 
 Isaiah xliv.* 24. Thus saith the Lord thy Redee- 
 mer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am 
 THE Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth 
 forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the 
 earth by myself." 
 
 Deut. xxxii, 39. "I, even I am he, and there is 
 NO God with me." 
 
 Zechariah xiv. 9. "In that day shall there be 
 one Lord and his name one." 
 
 Mark xii. 29. "Hear, Israel! the Lord our 
 God is one Lord." 
 
 Isaiah xlii. 1. "Behold my servant, whom I 
 uphold : mine elect in whom my soul delighteth : 
 I have put my spirit upon him." 
 
 John xvii. 3. " Father ! this is life eternal, that 
 they might know thee the only true God, and 
 Jesits Christ whom thou hast sent." This text 
 offers a complete refutation of the doctrme of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 5. "There is one God: and one Medi- 
 ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
 
 Acts xvii. 24, 31. "God that m.ade the world and 
 all things therein, the Lord of heaven and earth, 
 hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the 
 world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath 
 
214 PLUMMER AND M'cALLA's 
 
 ordained : whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
 men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." 
 
 The gentleman says he raised himself from the 
 dead ! 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. " There be Gods many and Lords 
 many; but to us there is but one God, the Father; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ,^' 
 
 Ephes. iv. 5, 6. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and 
 through all, and in you all." 
 
 Above your second and third co-eternals ! 
 
 Ephes. i. 17. "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of glory." 
 
 Ephes. i. 3. " Blessed be the God and Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with 
 all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." 
 
 Philippians i. 2. "Grace be unto you and peace 
 from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus 
 Christ.'' 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 24. " Then cometh the end, when he 
 [Jesus] shall have delivered up the kingdom to 
 God even the Father." 
 
 Mark xiii. 32. " Of that day and that hour know- 
 eth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, 
 neither the Son; but the Father." 
 
 John xiv. 1. "Ye believe in God; believe also 
 in me." 
 
 Mark x. 18. " Why callest thou me good ? There 
 is none good, but one ; that is God." 
 
 John xiv. 28. " My Father is greater than I." 
 
 John V. 19. "Verily I say unto you, the Son can 
 do nothing of himself" 
 
 John viii. 40. "Ye seek to kill me, a man that 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 215 
 
 hath told you the truth, which I have heard of 
 God.'' 
 
 John xvii. 2. " Thou hast given him power over 
 all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many 
 as thou hast given him." 
 
 2 Peter i. 17. "He received from God, the Fa- 
 ther, honor and glory.'' 
 
 These are not inferences — they are the words of 
 eternal truth — " words of the Spirit. ^^ 
 
 Acts. X. 38. "How God anointed Jesus of Naza- 
 reth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who 
 went about doing good, and healing all that were 
 oppressed of the devil: for God was with him." 
 
 John X. 36. " Him whom the Father hath sanc- 
 tified, and sent into the world." 
 
 Luke ii. 52. " Jesus increased in wisdom and 
 stature, and in favor both with God and man." 
 
 Hebrews v. 8. "Though he were a Son, yet 
 LEARNED HE OBEDIENCE, by the thlugs which he 
 suffered." 
 
 Did God ever learn obedience ? 
 
 Hebrews ii. 10. "It became him to make the 
 captain of their salvation perfect through suf- 
 ferings." 
 
 John xi. 41,42. "Father! I thank thee that thou 
 hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me 
 always," 
 
 Acts iii. 22. " For Moses truly said unto the fa- 
 thers, A PROPHET shall the Lord your God raise up 
 unto you, of your brethren, like unto Twe." 
 
 Actsii, 36. "Know assuredly that God hath made 
 that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord 
 and Christ.'' 
 
216 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 Acts V. 31. "Him hath God exalted with his 
 right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour." 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. " Now our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself, a?id God, even our Father, comfort your 
 hearts." 
 
 Acts i. 2. " Until the day in which he was taken 
 up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had 
 given commandments unto the apostles whom he 
 had chosen." 
 
 Acts ii. 33. " Jesus, being by the right hand of 
 God exalted, and having received of the Father 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, 
 which ye now see and hear." 
 
 John V. 26, 27. "As the Father hath life in him- 
 self, so HATH he given to the Son to have Hfe in 
 himself, and hath given him authority to execute 
 judgment also, because he is the Son of Man." 
 
 He received his life from his Father — he never 
 denied it. 
 
 We have been attacked by the gentleman — call- 
 ed God-denying heretics — and challenged to meet 
 this Goliath of the Presbyterians. It was boasted 
 that we were to be met and put down on our own 
 ground. We have accepted his challenge, and what 
 has he proved ? Has he proved their Confession of 
 Faith a better book than the word of God ? Has he 
 proved us to be God-denying heretics, because we 
 reject all but the word of God ? Has he, after all, 
 proved the doctrine of the Trinity — a plurality in 
 the divine essence, God the Father, God the Son, and 
 God the Holy Ghost, by one plain, positive passage 
 from the word of God ? No ! Has he proved that it 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 217 
 
 is not absurd to say there are more Gods than one ? 
 His best proofs from the Bible have been merely in- 
 ferential, derived from detached passages, the con- 
 nection of which shows a different doctrme. To sus- 
 tain his favorite position, he must violate the imi- 
 form meaning of language, and all analogy. He 
 says his doctrine is a certain indescribable, incom- 
 prehensible mystery ! Has he made it appear that 
 the invisible, unchangeable God, assumed the nature 
 and every thing common to man in one visible per- 
 son, and that this God-man died without change in 
 .Jehovah ? By what authority does he say that the 
 Eternal God became man, and that this man is the 
 Son of God who died for our sins ? But he says he 
 does not believe the Son of God died. We say he 
 did! — that "we are reconciled to God by the death 
 of his Son.'^ Rom. v. 10. My opponent sustains 
 his arguments by absurdities and contradictions. 
 
 I have done with the gentleman. We acknowledge 
 no other guide than this book. We believe in the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We con- 
 fess the Son as the Son of the Father in truth and 
 love ; and believe in him. A Christian is one who 
 believes in Christ, and walks agreeably to the infalhble 
 word of God. But the gentleman wishes us to lay 
 it aside for an absurd invention of men — this creed 
 of four hundred pages ! 
 
 What have we done } We have given you the 
 origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. We have 
 shown that this creed was begotten at some period 
 of the fourth century, by violent and corrupt priests 
 seeking for place, and more corrupt bishops, with 
 
 19 
 
218 
 
 three shaped hats, gorgeous appointments, and 
 pockets filled with money. We have shown it to be 
 a system of men, influenced by haughtiness and 
 pride, envy and hatred, enslaved to avarice and am- 
 bition, and carried away with views of temporal 
 grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues. We 
 have shown, that the language of this creed is not to 
 be found in the Bible, and hence that its doctrine is 
 not there. We have not felt pinched by a single ar- 
 gument of our opponent in support of his creed. 
 If every argument has not been met and refuted, it 
 has only been for want of time. But for want of 
 argument, the gentleman has resorted to sophistry, 
 ridicule, calmimy, and angry mimicry. Our doctrine, 
 we have proved, is to be found in the Bible, and in 
 Bible language. We rejoice that we have not a 
 system of religion to make, but to receive that which 
 God has revealed in his Holy Word. 
 
 We believe in one God, the Spirit that moved 
 upon the waters, and in " one Lord Jesus Ch7nst.'^ 
 To sustain us in this belief, we have the plain, posi- 
 tive, uniform declarations of God, his Son, the Pro- 
 phets and Apostles. We believe that Jesus is the 
 Messiah sent, and this is proved by his birth, life, 
 miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation. 
 At his death, all nature moved, but this could not 
 have been the God of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, for he is without variation or shadow of turn- 
 ing. We have no other creed to ofl'er you, than the 
 sayings of Jesus, who, when hunted by Jews and 
 Rabbles, retired to the mountains and pronounced his 
 blessed sayings to the assembled multitude : " He 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 219 
 
 that heareth these sayings, and doeth them, (he de- 
 clares) I will liken him unto the wise man who built 
 his house upon a rock ;" but " he that heareth these 
 my sayings and doeth them not, I will liken unto the 
 foolish man who built his house upon the sand.'^ 
 
 Unto him who hath come to curse Israel, and 
 anathematize us Christians, I would also say, hear 
 the words of Jesus — "Judge not that ye be not 
 judged — why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy 
 brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in 
 thine own eye — Thou hypocrite ! first cast out the 
 beam that is in thine own eye, and then shalt thou 
 see clearly to pull out the mote out of thy brother's 
 eye." 
 
 One word to those who sent for him to come and 
 ciurse Israel. Unlike Balaam of old, he has said 
 many things which God never commanded. After 
 Balak had sent his princes for Balaam, and brought 
 him to the country of the Moabites to curse Israel, 
 the Moabites and Midianites offered their sacrifices 
 on their seven altars, at three diflferent places, at each 
 of which they said, " Come curse me Jacob and defy 
 Israel !" And Balaam said, " How shall I curse 
 whom God hath not cursed ; and how shall I defy 
 whom God hath not defied?" And Balaam cursed 
 not, but blessed Israel. " And Balak's anger was 
 kindled against Balaam, and he smote his hands to- 
 gether : and Balak said unto Balaam, I called thee 
 to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast alto- 
 gether blessed them these three times. Therefore 
 now flee thou to thy place : I thought to promote 
 thee unto great honor ; but, lo, the Lord hath kept 
 
220 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 thee back from honor. And Balaam said unto Ba- 
 lak, Spake I not also to thy messengers which thou 
 sentest unto me, saying, If Balak would give me his 
 house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the 
 commandment of the Lord, to do either good or 
 bad of mine own mind ; but what the Lord saith, 
 that will I speak ?" Numb. xxiv. 10 — 13. Although 
 Balaam loved the wages of unrighteousness, he would 
 not say what the Lord had not commanded. 
 
 And now, what hath God said to us ? " This is 
 my beloved Son — ^liear ye him !" There is no other 
 name given by which to obtain salvation. 
 
 Oh, ye Moabites, Elomites, Midianites and Edom- 
 ites, the day is fast approaching which shall try your 
 foundation ! Then you all will say, like Balaam, 
 " Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my 
 last end be like his !" To obtain that glorious bless- 
 ing, you have all got to acknowledge the Lord Jesus 
 Christ as your Saviour. As God has said by that 
 magnanimous apostle to the Gentiles, " If thou shalt 
 confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
 believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
 the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart 
 man belie veth unto righteousness, and with the 
 mouth confession is made unto salvation !" 
 
 Oh, ye Delawarians ! turn from the doctrines and 
 commandments of men — turn from those who would 
 curse whom God would bless — turn from sin to God, 
 and confess the Lord Jesus Christ ! Take the ivord 
 of God as a " light to your feet, and a lamp to your 
 path." The day has gone by when those can be 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 221 
 
 put to death, who reject the systems of men and the 
 dogmas of Priestcraft ! 
 
 To the Board of Moderators I return thanks for 
 the patience, candor, and impartiaUty, with which 
 they have presided over our deliberations. I thank 
 God that through the blood of his Son and the blood 
 of our forefathers, we enjoy the privilege of meet- 
 ing to reason out of the Scriptures, and discuss these 
 deeply interesting and important topics, with none 
 to molest or make us afraid. 
 
 [Prayer by Mr. Plummer — but within his half- 
 hour.] 
 
 Hon. George G. Leiper, of the Board of Mode- 
 rators, stated, at the close of Mr. Plummer's address, 
 that, as the time had expired, for which the present 
 Board had been appointed, it would be necessary 
 for the meeting to suggest what course should be 
 now pursued. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said he was very well satisfied 
 with the discussion so far, but he wanted a little 
 more. He would therefore go on and finish his 
 arguments. 
 
 Rev: Mr. Cooper, in order to test the sense of the 
 meeting, moved that the Hon. George G. Leiper be 
 again requested to take the Chair, and the Reporter 
 to act as Secretary. [Carried.] 
 
 Rev. Mr. Helme suggested, that the present Board 
 19* 
 
222 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 of Moderators be requested to retain their seats, and 
 the discussion proceed as heretofore. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hall said he felt most sensibly the com- 
 pliment intended. When he consented to serve as a 
 member of the Board of Moderators, he was satis- 
 fied that he could not, consistently with his other 
 duties, remain longer than Friday noon. Circum- 
 stances, however, might perhaps allow him to re- 
 main during the afternoon session. But longer 
 than that it would be impossible for him to remain. 
 No person could feel a deeper interest in the subject 
 under discussion, but he should be compelled to 
 request the meeting to excuse him after to-day. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said that no longer than to-day did 
 he wish the audience to give their attendance. 
 
 Mr. Scholejield said it would be out of his power 
 to remain any longer, and he must therefore decline 
 the compliment intended. 
 
 Mr. Helme. As Mr. Hall also desires to be ex- 
 cused, the remaining three members of the Board 
 might be requested to remain, and the discussion 
 proceed. 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper approved of this suggestion. 
 The three respectable gentlemen who would then 
 constitute the Board, would be able to maintain 
 order, and further action on the part of the meeting 
 thus rendered unnecessary. 
 
 Mr, Plummer remarked, that he had but two 
 objections to remaining. One was sickness in his 
 family — ^the other an unwillingness to trespass farther 
 on the patience of the assembly. He thought no- 
 thing farther of interest would be elicited. He was 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE OX THE TRINITY. 223 
 
 willing, however, to be governed by the wishes of 
 the audience. He had embarked in the discussion 
 with the expectation of closing to-day. He was 
 desirous to gratify the assembly ; o.nd, hereafter, 
 should be willing again to meet the gentleman, if 
 it was thought expedient. At the present time, 
 however, he thought a majority of the audience 
 was in favor of now closing the discussion. 
 
 Mr. M^Calla said the rules gave to the parties 
 the right of speaking until each should be satisfied. 
 He had no doubt his opponent thought the discus- 
 sion should now close ; but he was of a different 
 opinion. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Cooper moved that the meeting do now 
 adjourn, to convene again at half past one, P. iNF. 
 The rules had given to the parties the right of being 
 heard until they were satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Sketchley Morton was " for justice, though 
 the heavens do fall.'' By the rules adopted, the 
 discussion was to be continued until 12 o'clock 
 to-day, when the present Board ceased to exist, and 
 the discussion necessarily closed, miless the parties 
 were mutually desirous that it should be continued. 
 
 Mr. Plummer said he had no objection to pro- 
 ceed with the discussion, if it could be brought to 
 a close the present afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Charles H. Plummer said, he thought it 
 would be improper to submit a question of this kind 
 to the meeting, without consulting the wishes of the 
 parties immediately concerned. The consent of one 
 party had been obtained, but it seemed to be the 
 
224 PLUMMER AND M'cALLA's 
 
 determination of some present, to utterly disregard 
 the wishes of the other party. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hall hoped that the apprehensions of 
 Mr. M'Calia, in relation to this discussion, would 
 not prove to have been prophetic. He had posi- 
 tively assured the meeting that he would rather die^ 
 than agree to waive his right to reply to the argu- 
 ments of his opponent. With a full knowledge of 
 this fact, the rules had been adopted, and by no act 
 of theirs could the meeting nullify the right of the 
 parties "to be heard until they were satisfied." He 
 also was "for justice, though the heavens do fall." 
 He trusted, however, that the baser passions would 
 not here be suffered to gain the ascendency — that 
 all would conduct like men, and not degrade them- 
 selves to something beneath man. For the honor 
 of Delaware county, he hoped none of her citizens 
 would be urged to imbrue their hands in blood. 
 
 Mi\ Sketchley Morton. The gentleman says the 
 arrangement was fully explained and understood. 
 My own understanding of the rules was, that the 
 duties of the Board ceased to-day at 12 o'clock, and 
 that a farther continuance of the discussion was 
 optional with the parties. 
 
 The Chairman remarked that the rules them- 
 selves were the best evidence. 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla said that as the other party had an- 
 nounced to the audience that he had made his closing 
 speech, he wished it to be understood that he should 
 claim the right to occupy the whole of the two hours 
 this afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Cooper. As Mr. Plummer has partly con- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 225 
 
 sented to continue the debate, such a course, it seems 
 to me, would be entirely improper. The meeting is 
 as solemnly bound to hear Mr. Plummer as it is to 
 hear Mr. M'Calla. If it be decided that the dis- 
 cussion shall go on, the gentleman shall be heard 
 alternately as heretofore, "imtil they are satisfied." 
 If Mr. Plummer does not conclude to remain, then, 
 and then only, will Mr. M'Calla be justly entitled to 
 the whole of the two hours. 
 
 Mr. Plummer. Under existing circumstances, I 
 think it would be folly to continue the discussion. I 
 have mtimated my willingness to remain for the rest 
 of the day, if the debate could then be brought to a 
 termination. It is evident, however, from the re- 
 marks of my opponent, that such a result is not to 
 be expected. — The gentleman would be no more sa- 
 tisfied, at the close of the day, than he is at present. 
 He would claim the right to be heard again to-mor- 
 row, for it is very apparent that he is determined to 
 have the last speech. 
 
 [Mr. Cooper's motion for an adjourment prevailed, 
 and it was stated from the Chair that INIr. M'Calla 
 would be heard for two hours, commencing at half 
 past one P. M., unless the meeting should then other- 
 wise determine.] 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 
 
 It is due to the gentlemen who acted as jNIodera- 
 tors in the foregoing debate, that the following pro- 
 ceedings should be recorded : — 
 
 Mr. Charles H. Plummer here said, the discus- 
 sion having closed, according to the rules adopted 
 for the government of the debate, and as a majority 
 of the Board of Moderators, is not to be present at 
 the contemplated afternoon session, he would pro- 
 pose the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this assembly be and 
 hereby are presented, to the Board of Moderators, 
 for the gentlemanly and impartial manner in which 
 they have presided over the deliberations of this 
 body. 
 
 The resolution was seconded, the question taken, 
 and carried by acclamation. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 The following proceedings which took place after 
 we had left, and the address by Mr. M'Calla, the 
 Reporter has given as a part of the discussion, and 
 says that Mr. M'Calla claims their admission. But 
 we do not consider them a legitimate part of the dis- 
 cussion ; because the rules formed by the Modera- 
 tors for the regulation of the debate with which we 
 stood connected, expressly provided, that the Board 
 of Moderators should continue until Friday at 12 
 o'clock, when their duties should cease, and the dis- 
 cussion accordingly close. 
 
 These rules we signed, and considered them bind- 
 ing upon us. We agreed to no other. Mr. M'Calla 
 signed no rules — therefore was not bound by any; 
 but contended that he had a right to speak until he 
 was satisfied, and a part of the audience remained 
 and heard him two hours in the afternoon. That 
 there may be no cause of complaint, from him or 
 his friends, we, with the Society at Ridley, consent 
 to their admission, which we think, however, justly 
 entitles us to the reply subjoined. 
 
 F. PLUMMER. 
 
 (227) 
 
228 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 Friday, ^ past 1, P. M. 
 
 Met pursuant to adjournment. The Hon. George 
 G. Leiper took the chair, and the Reporter acted as 
 Secretary. 
 
 A message was received from Mr. Eves, President 
 of the Board of Moderators, stating that he should 
 not be able to attend. 
 
 Mr. Morton also declined serving. He said the 
 understanding was, when the rules were framed, that 
 a Board of Moderators was to be continued so long 
 as the discussion continued. When he consented to 
 retain his seat at the Board, it was with the expecta- 
 tion that the parties were to occupy alternate half 
 houi^ as heretofore. Mr. M'Calla, however, had 
 stated that he wanted the two hours to himself. 
 Such was his understanding of the matter, and such 
 he believed to be the understanding of others. He 
 therefore resigned, for he did not wish to continue as 
 a member of the Board, while only one party was 
 to speak. [It was moved to excuse Mr. Morton 
 from serving, but the motion was not sustamed by 
 the meeting.] 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla believed that all present were aware, 
 that he had not claimed for himself any exclusive 
 privileges. He had contended from the first that the 
 parties should be heard until they were satisfied. 
 It was only after Mr. Plmmner had declared that he 
 "had done," that he (Mr. M'C.) had expressed his 
 intention to occupy the whole of the two hours this 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 229 
 
 afternoon. But if the people, the ]Moderators, or the 
 authorities of the house, objected to his proceeding, 
 he was ready to stop. 
 
 Mr. Morton said that Mr. Plummer had agreed 
 to continue the discussion for two hours this after- 
 noon, but not that Mr. M'Calla should have the 
 whole time to himself. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Cooper. It has been said that the dis- 
 cussion is ended. I understood that the meetmg 
 was to re-assemble at half-past one, and that the de- 
 bate was to be continued as before. The discussion 
 has not been closed by the meeting, nor has it been 
 closed by the Moderators. Nor do I understand by 
 what authority IMr. M'Calla has a right to say that 
 he will speak for two hours. The Board of Mode- 
 rators have the right, as heretofore, to govern the 
 discussion. If Mr. Plummer waives his right to be 
 heard at the expiration of Mr. M'Calla's half hour, 
 then Mr. M'Calla has a right to proceed, but not 
 otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Morton desired the meeting to reconsider the 
 vote by which they had refused to excuse him from 
 serving as a member of the Board of Moderators. — 
 He could not consent to serve, for he considered the 
 discussion as ended. 
 
 Mr. Cooper moved that the meeting proceed to 
 fill vacancies. [Carried.] 
 
 Mr. S. M. Leiper thought, as a consequence of 
 Mr. Plummer's absence, Mr. M'Calla had the right 
 to proceed for two hours. 
 
 Mr. Morton. The view which has been taken 
 of this matter, it seems to me, is not correct. We 
 20 
 
230 
 
 cannot be expected to stay here for a month. Mr. 
 M'Calla may contmue as long as he pleases, but for 
 one, I consider the discussion as ended. I cannot, 
 therefore, consent to serve at the Board. 
 
 Rev, Mr. Hall. I do not consider my friend 
 Morton bound to act as a member of the Board, but 
 I cannot agree with him in every particular. He 
 had a right to resign at twelve o'clock, or after; but, 
 by the rules, that does not end the discussion. If 
 Mr. M'Calla chooses to continue for twelve months, 
 according to the rules, the discussion is the same. 
 
 The Chair thought it very clear that the Board 
 of Moderators had a right to resign at or after twelve 
 o'clock, and he therefore hoped that the meeting 
 would reconsider the vote by which it had refused 
 to excuse Mr. Morton. [The vote was accordingly 
 reconsidered and Mr. Morton excused.] 
 
 Mr. M^ Calla said, Mr. Plummer had announced 
 to the audience, that he was making his closing 
 speech. He had supposed, therefore, that according 
 to the rules he had a right to proceed until he was 
 satisfied. 
 
 [It was finally arranged that the Board should 
 consist of three instead of five members ; and Rev. 
 Mr. Cooper was appointed to supply the vacancy 
 occasioned by the absence of Mr. Eves.] 
 
 Mr. Cooper said he did not feel that it would be 
 right for him to occupy a seat at the Board, as it 
 would then be composed entirely of Trinitarians. 
 A report of the discussion, he understood, was to 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 231 
 
 be printed, and such a course might appear unjust 
 towards Mr. Plummer. He thought the friends of 
 Mr. Plummer, as Mr. Morton had resigned, should 
 be allowed to fill the vacancy. 
 
 [The objections of Mr. Cooper were finally over- 
 ruled, the meeting adjourned, the Moderators took 
 their seats, and at 2 o'clock, P. M., Mr. M'Calla 
 resumed his argument. His closing address was 
 substantially as follows ;1 
 
232 PLUMMER AND m'CALLA's 
 
 MR. M'CALLA. 
 
 When I came here, it was my expectation that 
 the rules of this discussion would be prepared and 
 settled by the parties. My respected audience will 
 remember, that when, at the solicitation of my oppo- 
 nent, the framing of these rules was taken out of the 
 hands of the parties, to be adjusted by a bench of 
 Moderators, in the nomination of which I dechned 
 acting, and to be adopted by this assembly, to 
 whose jurisdiction in the case I respectfully demur- 
 red. I withdi'ew my name from the lists, as not 
 wishing to promise a contest by any rules but those 
 of which my own conscience could approve. One 
 thing to which I expressly declared that I could not 
 yield, was giving to others the right of guiding, in- 
 terrupting, or limiting my argument. To bring the 
 rules within the pale of my own conscience, the 
 bench and the house were so kind as to insert a 
 clause, allowing the debate to continue until the 
 parties were satisfied. This was indispensable to 
 my engaging in the discussion, as my adversary 
 would be apt, according to custom, to throw into his 
 last speech, his red hot shot, because I should not 
 be allowed an answer. To limit me in the argu- 
 ment, would have been peculiarly wrong as the 
 bench and the house adopted the unprecedented 
 arrangement, giving to my opponent the last speech 
 of every forenoon and every afternoon, while he 
 chose to continue the discussion. For this reason 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 233 
 
 it is, that he and his adherents exhibited so much 
 zeal this morning in an effort to close the discussion 
 with his closing speech. That speech contained 
 some things which were so grossly false, and cru- 
 elly unjust, that every principle of goodness and 
 fairness, generosity and justice, requires that I 
 should enjoy the liberty secured to me in the rules, 
 of speaking mitil I am satisfied. If he were still 
 here, I should be pleased to continue the argument, 
 with the leave of God and this kind people, for 
 several days. But now, in his absence, I a'Sk no- 
 thing more than your patient attention, during the 
 two hours alloted to an afternoon, by the rules. 
 
 I have frequently had occasion to show you, that 
 my opponent was guilty of very great and injurious 
 misrepresentations, in some of which he even pre- 
 tended to read to you, very exact notes penned by 
 himself from my lips. And I have taken the liberty 
 of showing you irreconcilable discrepancies between 
 his notes and my words, and even his notes and his 
 own words, and between one note and another note 
 of his own. Such reporters as he and my former 
 antagonists, take such boundless liberties, that they 
 could, if believed, swear me under the gallows at 
 any moment. On the present occasion, I must refer 
 you to his false imputation of a doctrine to me, 
 which for me to believe, after the solenm vows 
 which I have taken to the contrar^^, would make me 
 a worse man than an ordinary horse-thief. He has 
 told you, that I have declared, repeatedly and em- 
 phatically, in your presence, that the Divinity is 
 changed into humanity, though he knows that I 
 20* 
 
234 PLUMMER AND m'c ALLANS 
 
 have, with the solemnity of an oath, adopted a creed 
 which denies this change or conversion of Deity into 
 humanity. And to show his desire to wrong me in 
 this false assertion, he has quoted that creed to you, 
 which declares that the incarnation of the Son of 
 God is without conversion, composition or confusion. 
 As we believe, in opposition to the Patripassions, 
 that the Saviour is the second person of the God- 
 head in human nature, and not the first nor the third, 
 thus making a confusion of the persons, so we be- 
 Heve, in opposition to the Swedenborgians, that the 
 human nature of Christ is a real created himianity, 
 and not a divine humanity by a conversion of deity 
 into humanity. And we believe also, that after the 
 incarnation the person of Christ is not a tertiuni 
 quid, as the chemists say, formed by the composition 
 of two other and diiierent ingredients : but this per- 
 son of Christ has in close, intimate, mysterious union, 
 two distinct natures, as distinct in their union as be- 
 fore the Saviour's birth. This may be illustrated by 
 a reference to our OAvn nature. Each individual of 
 this audience, has in his one person two distinct 
 beings, the one material and the other immaterial. 
 So perfectly distinct are they, though united, that at 
 the hour of death, this material being may lose its 
 consciousness, and sleep and dissolve in the earth, 
 while the immaterial being may retain its conscious- 
 ness and ascend to the Paradise of God, there to await 
 the resuscitation of the body when this material being 
 and this immaterial being shall be re-united in one 
 person. The mind is not changed into the body, 
 nor is the body converted into the mind — without this 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 235 
 
 conversion they form one person. So in the person 
 of our Saviour, the divinity is not converted into the 
 humanity, nor the humanity into the Divinity. The 
 tAvo natures are distinct and unchanged, while united 
 in one divine and adorable person. 
 
 [Mr. M'Calla was here interrupted by the Board 
 of Moderators, and the Hon. George G. Leiper stated, 
 that as the half hour had expired, Mr. Plummer, if 
 present, was entitled to his half hour as heretofore. 
 
 Mr. Hehne moved, that Mr. M'Calla should be 
 allowed to proceed. 
 
 The President. The Moderators have decided, 
 as Mr. Plummer is not present, that Mr. M^Calla 
 shall be allowed to go on with his arguments.] 
 
 My opponent's irreverent and Paganised views 
 and expressions are of such a character, as to forbid 
 my fraternising with him in worship, as I am forbid- 
 den to hold intercommunion with a heathen or Ma- 
 hometan. But as he has departed, I will now lead 
 in prayer, with the consent of the assembly. 
 
 [Prayer by Mr. M'Calla.] 
 
 My opponent has declared to this audience, that 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is so manifestly absurd, 
 that Trinitarian parents never speak of it to their 
 children. The fact, if a fact, would be as disgrace- 
 ful as the intended inference is false. The catechism 
 of our church, to be taught and explained to all its 
 children, plainly declares the doctrine ; and their 
 initiation into the church, is in the name of the Holy 
 Trinity. When pious Jews were asked by their 
 
236 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 children, the meaning of their ceremonies, they were 
 not ashamed to own them; and Christian parents, 
 who have more Ught, should have more zeal. Such 
 instruction cannot of itself renew the heart, but 
 parents should give it, and hope and pray that God 
 may bless it. A pious mother, mentioned by Dr. 
 Alexander, was once asked, why all her children 
 were so soon converted ? She answered, that the 
 power was from God, and she had hardly ever asked 
 herself the question, whether she had used any pe- 
 culiar means for their salvation. But the question 
 asked by another, reminded her, that in their infancy 
 she had hardly ever given one the breast without 
 lifting up her heart to God in prayer for its salvation. 
 As the Scriptures are afterwards given to them, and 
 called the sincere milk of the word, ought not pa- 
 rents to be equally convinced of their dependence on 
 Heaven, and equally zealous in praying for a blessing 
 with these breasts of consolation ? 
 
 Allow me to press this subject a moment, with a 
 bearing that comes more home to our own present 
 case. Some of the friends of the truth in this 
 assembly, have been tempted to place too much con- 
 fidence in the use of means. They have privately 
 spoken as if they were certain that my adversary 
 would be defeated if he once got into my clutches. 
 This is not my doctrine, and it ought not to be yours. 
 Was it God or Moses that defeated Egypt and deli- 
 vered Israel ? Paul may plant and ApoUos water, 
 but it is God that giveth the increase; and Christians 
 should carefully use the means according to his will, 
 and feel their utter dependence upon his blessing. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 237 
 
 This truth I have endeavored to recognize in the 
 present controversy. I have told my Maker and 
 Master in secret, that my weakness and worthless- 
 ness were manifest and undeniable. I have besought 
 him to interpose in his own way for the salvation 
 of your precious souls. And in the contemplation 
 of this glorious subject, the mere carnal gratification 
 of a personal victory over an individual adversary, 
 is blotted out. 
 
 One of the most mournful blasphemies, exhibited by 
 him, is the one in which he said that "if Christ was 
 God, then the devil was God V' This was said in a 
 giggling manner, in the hearing of children. It was 
 not the sincere milk of the word, but the gall and 
 the vinegar of hatred to Christ. He had his salvo, 
 as all the self-conceited Unitarian tribe have, for 
 their evil words. He has said in your presence, that 
 the devil is called the God of this world, from which 
 he thinks himself justified in a diabolical opposition 
 to the God of heaven. Because the name God is 
 given to the prince of the power of the air, and to 
 the princes and potentates of the human race, whe- 
 ther good or bad, he seems to think the name so 
 utterly desecrated, that it cannot mark supreme and 
 eternal divinity. He might as well say, that because 
 the term man is in the Hebrew idiom apphed to m- 
 ferior, irrational, and even inanimate creatures, it 
 cannot therefore denote humanity. We shall, how- 
 ever, show, with the help of God, that this infidelity 
 is without excuse. Take, for instance, Jude 24, 
 25 — " Now unto him that is able to keep you from 
 falling, and to present you faultless before the pre- 
 
238 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA^S 
 
 sence of his glory, with exceeding joy, to the only 
 wise God our Saviour, be glory, and majesty, do- 
 minion, and power, both now and evermore. Amen/i;^ 
 We admit that the devil is the god of this world, 
 and the persecuting judges are sometimes called gods, 
 but theu godships are qualified, for they shall die 
 like men, and go to their own place. How comes 
 it, therefore, that the same Bible says that Jesus 
 Christ is the "only wise God, our Saviour?" If 
 ministers are told to be wise as serpents, must not 
 the old serpent be wise ? yet here is the only wise 
 God. Moses was a god to Aaron. Was not Moses 
 wise ? How comes it, then, that that prophet of whom 
 he was a type, is the only wise God. Admit that he is 
 the only true, supreme and eternal God, and that 
 others are only figurative gods, and there is no contra- 
 diction. This is the solution which gives due force 
 to every scriptural expression upon the subject, " ut 
 res magis valeat quant pereat — that the thing may 
 stand rather than perish" by irreconcilable incon- 
 sistencies. This is the way to reconcile otherwise 
 inconsistent declarations concerning the Sonship of 
 Christ. He is said to be God's own Son, his only 
 begotten Son ; yet, in his genealogy, Luke says that 
 Adam is the Son of God. — And Paul says we are 
 all his offspring. Moses says that the antediluvian 
 Saints were the Sons of God, and the angels are 
 called the Sons of God. How then is Christ empha- 
 tically God's own Son, his only begotten Son, except 
 upon the ground given by David and Paul, " unto 
 the Son he saith, thy throne, God, is for ever and 
 ever?" This is a language which both these in- 
 
 r/ 
 
 r^ 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 239 
 
 spired penmen deny to the great men of the world 
 and to the loftiest creatures of heaven. Yet this does 
 not show that heaven contains two Gods, but only a 
 plurality of persons in the one Divine essence. 
 
 When Jude calls Christ the only Divine Potentate, 
 he does not mean to contradict Paul in his declara- 
 tion that the Father is the blessed and only Potentate, 
 but to assert the equality of the one person with the 
 other, iu one Divine Essence. Isaiah (ch. xliv. 5, 6. xlv. 
 20, 21, 22^) says, "Thus saith the Lord, the King 
 of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, I 
 am the first and I am the last, and beside me there 
 is no God." Does he here mean to deny the created 
 godsliips mentioned in Scripture, or does he believe 
 that the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of 
 Hosts, are two Gods ? Candid intelligence will own, 
 that he distinguishes this divine Redeemer as su- 
 preme over these inferior gods, and as co-equal with 
 the Father and his Spirit in the one Godhead. When 
 the same prophet says, in the place just referred to, 
 " I am God, and there is none else,'^ does he mean 
 to deny that the devil is the God of this world ? In- 
 stead of this, he means to assert, that the speaker is 
 the God of heaven, an equal person with the Father, 
 in one essence. In the same place just referred to, 
 the second person of the trinity says, " There is no 
 God else beside me, a just God and a Saviour ; there 
 is none beside me," which contains no denial of the 
 supreme divinity of the other persons of the adorable 
 trinity, nor of the inferior godship of angels and men, 
 good and bad ; but it certainly declares that the Son 
 is co-equal and co-essential with the supreme Father, 
 
240 
 
 and of course that there is a phirahty of persons 
 in the one divine essence. 
 
 David, (Psahn Ixxxiii. 18,) says of the Father, 
 " Thou whose name alone is Jehovah art the Most 
 High over all the earth." Here are two expressions 
 denoting Supremacy. He who is Most High is Su- 
 preme, and He who is over all is Supreme ; and as 
 they are used to denote the Supremacy of the Father, 
 Unitarians will not contradict me. But a good rule 
 works both ways. If our Redeemer be Most High, 
 and if he be God over all, then his Supremacy also 
 should be admitted ; and as there are not two Gods, 
 there must be a plurality of persons in one Divine 
 essence. A very little time will serve to show you, 
 that these expressions are used to denote the Supreme 
 divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 My opponent's bretliren, Fleming and Kmkade, 
 make such declarations as the following, viz : 
 " When the prophets foretold of Christ, they always 
 mentioned liim as a being uiferior to and dependant 
 on God." Paul, in 1 Corinthians x. 9, says, "Neither 
 let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted." 
 Will David answer for a Prophet ? He says of Clirist, 
 (Psalm Ixxviii. 56,) " They tempted and provoked 
 the Most High God. In Luke i. 76, Zacharias says 
 to his new-born son, John the Baptist, " And thou 
 child shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for 
 thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare 
 his ways." Paul says, (Romans ix. 5,) " Of whom 
 as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all 
 God blessed for ever." Here we have Christ de- 
 clared to be the Highest Lord, and over all God, as 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 241 
 
 David declared his Father to be " the Most High over 
 all/' Yet these are not two Gods, nor do they deny 
 inferior Godships, but only declare that there is a 
 plurality of equal persons in the one Divine essence. 
 The same thing which is here declared, is asserted in 
 Luke i. 35, concerning the third person of the Tri- 
 nity : " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 
 the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." 
 Whether the title here be miderstood of the Father 
 or of the Spirit, it is well known that they who, like 
 Ananias and Sapphira, sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 sin not against men but against God. My supreme 
 desire is, that you and yours, and all for whom we 
 should be concerned, may not sin against the Father, 
 the Son, or the Spirit ; but may penitently, believ- 
 ingly, and practically, receive the Holy Trinity, and 
 find a hiding place in your covenant God. 
 
 21 
 
242 
 
 MR. PLUMMER. 
 
 The gentleman commenced by saying, " When I 
 came here I expected that the rules of the discussion 
 would have been arranged by the parties V Yet in 
 the evening debate upon the rules, he said that he 
 not only "expected a long tug, but that we to 
 avoid meeting him, would not agree to any fair 
 rules." Now the truth is, the greatest difficulty in the 
 way was his conscience — not only with us, but with 
 the Moderators and also the assembly. Unlike the 
 apothecary who deals in scruples, the gentleman 
 deals largely in conscience without scruples. He 
 misnames his will, craft or notions, conscience ; as 
 he does a " certain something" in his creed, which 
 he calls "persons;" but says "we are not to under- 
 stand by persons what is usually meant when ap- 
 plied to other things ; but distinctions in the God- 
 head that may be called persons." What is the true 
 character of those who say one thing and mean an- 
 other ? If we put persons for distinctions, and dis- 
 tinctions for persons ; is it not as Jesus says — "putting 
 light for darkness and darkness for Ught?" Paul 
 speaks of some who " turned aside from a good con- 
 science, unto vain jangling, understanding not 
 what they say, nor whereof they affirm." 1 Tim. i. 
 5 — 7. Those who follow such leaders, will, with 
 them, "fall into the ditch!" 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 243 
 
 Again, he says, " The bench and the house were 
 so kind as to insert a clause allowing the debate to 
 continue until the parties were satisfied." And why- 
 were they so kind ? Because they saw that there 
 would be no discussion without. His conscience 
 said, " This is indispensable to my engaging in the 
 discussion." Yea, " I will die first." AMiy all this 
 manoeuvering to cover his retreat, if he was not co?i' 
 scions oi being defeated? He is so very fair that 
 he must have not only the last speech but the first, 
 prefaced with an address of three and a half hours, 
 also an evening preach of an hour and a half dur- 
 ing the discussion, and then through fear of the " red 
 hot shot" of his opponent's last thirty minutes' speech 
 sinking him, he must have two hours at least to repair 
 his creed and to endeavor to return to port, although 
 in a sinking condition. " He who builds with hay 
 wood and stubble," upon the foundation of men's 
 inventions, may well fear " red hot shot." But he 
 who is m the tire-proof of truth, and hath built upon 
 "Christ the foundation, gold, silver and precious 
 stones," (1 Cor. iii. 12 — 15,) fears not the red hot 
 shot of antichrist. And, saith Paul, " He shall be 
 able to quench all the Jieri/ darts of the wicked." 
 Ephesians vi. 16. 
 
 The very conscientious gentleman says, "If he 
 were still here, I should be pleased to continue the 
 argument for several days." But did he not say, 
 " if my opponent shall remain this afternoon or some 
 days longer, I shall claim my right of speaking two 
 hours after he has done?" Did the majority of the 
 Moderators, who concurred with him in sentiment, 
 
244 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 think it was his right 7 No ! Did the majority of 
 the house think so ? No ! It was his tender con- 
 science and the management of certain individuals 
 by whom he at last obtained the insertion of the in- 
 dejinitt clause of the rules, " until the parties are 
 satisfied." 
 
 But the gentleman says, " My opponent was guilty 
 of very great and injurious misrepresentations, in 
 some of which he even pretended to read very exact 
 notes, pemied from my lips." And he adds, "I 
 have shown you irreconcilable discrepancies, be- 
 tween his notes and my words, and even his notes 
 and his own words, and between one note and an- 
 other note of his own." These statements are not 
 true. Why did he not make them m my presence ? 
 If they were true would he not have given the evi- 
 dence ? We now believe the story that he told about 
 the Christians in the west, and the old boards, a 
 fabrication of his own to excuse himself for the libel 
 for which he was convicted by a jury of his country- 
 men. He showed no contradictions in our notes 
 during the discussion. We called on him once to 
 correct his notes, when he said that we had set 
 twenty-five passages of scripture against one. W^e 
 said, that Moses had used the singular pronoun in 
 speaking of God, a hundred times to one of the plu- 
 ral. — ^We might have said a thousand to one. 
 
 But charging us with being guilty of discrepancies 
 and misrepresentations, comes with an ill grace from 
 him. Have we ever challenged him, and then 
 denied it? Have we invited him into a Chris- 
 tian pulpit, and denied it ? Have we made state- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 245 
 
 ments that would convict us of Atheism, and 
 then denied the statements ? Have we ever spoken 
 disrespectfully of Mechanics, and then denied what 
 we said ? No ! Have we been detected in quot- 
 ing scraps, and detached parts of Scripture to sup- 
 port our views, when the whole passage or its con- 
 nection would show an entire different meaning? 
 Facts are stubborn things ! But again, does not the 
 gentleman hold that " there are three persons in the 
 Godhead," which Godhead was united to a very 
 man of "two persons," and yet that these five per- 
 sons are but " One person" — " One Christ ?" That 
 this very God and very man were " inseparably^^ 
 joined in "one person," who was crucified, and yet 
 that only the fifth person, the " manhood died ?" 
 Has he not asserted that God cannot die, that Christ 
 is that very God, " That in his soul and body he 
 bore the punishment of our sins, as efficacious to 
 our atonement as if the Deity had died in our 
 place ?" And yet, " that the blood of Christ is figu- 
 ratively called the blood of God" only! Did he 
 not say in his first speech that we are not to under- 
 stand that there is "a plurality of beings in one 
 person ;" but in his last speech that there are " two 
 beings in one person .^" He says, " There is neither 
 name, act nor attribute in the Godhead that is not 
 shared in common by all the persons in the Trinity;" 
 yet, that, "each of these persons possesses some pro- 
 perties which do not belong to the others." He 
 says that, "Three distinct persons in one divine 
 essence appears to me incomprehensible;^^ and yet 
 that it can be understood, and that he understands 
 21* 
 
246 PLUMMER AND M'CALLA's 
 
 the great outlines of it.'^ He says, to admit that 
 Christ is " the only true, Supreme and Eternal God, 
 is the way to reconcile otherwise inconsistent decla- 
 rations concerning the Sonship of Christ!" Where 
 are those "iVreco?zci7«^/e inconsistent declarations?" 
 In God's words ? No ! What ! the " loords of the 
 Spirit'^ concerning the Sonship of Christ ''incon- 
 sistent?^^ And he has a ivay to reconcile them ! He 
 had better reconcile the folio v/ing " irreconcilable'^ 
 statements of his own. " Jehovah, God expressly 
 declares, is a name that he icill not give to another^ 
 although it is given to Jesus Christ." Now, if the 
 gentleman believes that God speaks the truths what 
 mw<y/ Ae think of himself ? Agam, " Although Mey 
 (the Son and the Spirit) are different from Jehovah, 
 they are not another, but the same Divine being." 
 ^' Christ himself can do nothing, yet he can do all 
 things!" He is of "Eternal generation, the true 
 temple of God, the house of God, and God himself!^' 
 And all those, a thousand and one palpable contra- 
 dictions, are not "discrepancies," because Paul said, 
 "great is the mystery of Godliness." "You blind 
 guide ! who strains at a gnat, and would swallow 
 A CAMPBELL." 
 
 But the gentleman said, " I must refer you to a 
 false imputation of a doctrme to me which for me to 
 believe after the solemn vows I have made to the 
 contrary, would make me worse than an ordinary 
 horse thief" If a fair construction of the gentle- 
 man's own words and the words of his creed, will 
 make him worse than an ordinary horse thief, we 
 are not to be censured for that. " Out of thine own 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 247 
 
 mouth will I condemn thee." He adds, " I have 
 with the solemnity of an oath adopted a creed which 
 denies this change or conversion of Deity into hu- 
 manity. And to show his desire to wrong me in this 
 false assertion, he has quoted that creed to you." 
 And is this criminal, or unfair, — to quote from his 
 own creed to show his absurdities ? If so, we will 
 offend again. The Christ of his creed is said to be 
 composed of ^^ the Godhead and the manhood in- 
 separably joined together in one person, which per- 
 son is very God and very man yet one Christ." But 
 the gentleman has said that it is not the Father nor 
 the Holy Spirit, but the Son, the second person 
 alone, that took the manhood ; that " Christ the Sa- 
 viour is the second person of the Godhead in human 
 nature, and not the Jii^st nor the third.''^ Is not this 
 contradicting the Scriptures and his own creed? 
 Paul says, that "in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of 
 the Godhead bodily.''^ (Col. ii. 9.) And Jesus says, 
 " The Father dwelleth iii me. He doeth the works." 
 (John xiv, 10.) And his creed says that it was the 
 " Godhead and manhood, and in this Godliead 
 there be three persons of one substance, power, and 
 eternity : God the Father, God the Son, and God the 
 Holy Ghost !" He is at odds with the New School ; 
 and the Old School may yet reprove him for un- 
 soundness in the faith. This ''very and Eternal 
 God of three persons, took man^s nature, and all 
 the essential properties and common infirmities 
 thereof, joined together in one person, which person 
 is Christ, through the power of the Holy Ghost in 
 the womb of the^ Virgin Mary ;" and yet NO "com- 
 
248 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 position, change nor conversion ?'* — [See Walker's 
 definition.] Yea more, This One person. One Christ 
 dies, but the divinity does not suffer ; inseparably 
 joined together in One person, One God who actually- 
 died, yet he did not die, for the human nature only- 
 died, yet " He gave his SOUL an offering for sin." 
 And he admires the " Sweet Poet" that says 
 
 " God the mighty Maker died 
 For man the creature's sin." 
 
 All these monstrous absurdities, the gentleman 
 adopted with the solemnity of an oath. And hence 
 we should believe his creed, and not presume to 
 question his sincerity ? If once a lawyer, he must 
 be a quack in law as well as in Divinity — for in law 
 a witness who absolutely contradicts himself in his 
 testimony is not believed although upon his oath. 
 And why should he who states the most palpable 
 contradictions in Divine matters be credited upon his 
 oath ? Have we misrepresented the gentleman's con- 
 tradictions, or exaggerated the gross absurdities of 
 his creed ? No ! No ! We have spared it and him. 
 
 Again. He says, " such reporters as he could if 
 believed swear me under the gallows at any mo- 
 ment." Here the gentleman was also unhappy in 
 his allusions. When did a Christian preacher ever 
 persecute a Presbyterian, or by his oath cause im- 
 prisonment or death to any one ? The Presbyterians 
 have persecuted the Christians time and again. We 
 will ask the learned gentleman if Calvin, the no- 
 torious persecutor, is not his spiritual ancestor, and 
 favorite oracle of orthodoxy ? One of the memorable 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRIXITY. 249 
 
 victims of his y^eligious intolerance was Michael 
 Servetus, a learned Spaniard, an eminent physician, 
 and a pious Christian, He held a confidential, 
 religious <^ correspondence with Calvin: — Of this 
 confidence Calvin subsequently made a base use.'' 
 "It is well known, that Michael Servetus, on his 
 passage through Geneva, in 1553, was arrested, and, 
 on Calvin's accusation, was BURNT ALIVE, 
 because he had attacked the mystery of the Tri- 
 nity in a book which was neither icritten, nor 
 printed at Geneva. Numerous other similar ex- 
 amples might be adduced, to prove the blind and 
 fanatical zeal which he had infused into the ma- 
 gistracy of Geneva.'^ And was it not the orthodox 
 Trinitarians who cruelly persecuted, whipt, banished, 
 imprisoned and hung unoffending men and icomen 
 of the society of Friends in New England? We will 
 ask our very conscientious opponent, who has exhi- 
 bited the Christian spirit in this dispute ? Can he 
 name a Presbyterian congregation that would sit 
 and hear a Christian minister without provocation 
 abuse and calumniate them (in their own house) in 
 a disrespectful manner, denouncing their faith as the 
 " God denying heresy," as the Christians in Ridley 
 did him without interruption ? Would any of the 
 sects that backed him in the effort to put us down 
 suffer it without putting him down ? No ! Yet we 
 patiently heard him pour out "the vials of his wrath 
 upon us" until he was tired. 
 
 But again, contradicting the 51st page of his creed, 
 the gentleman said — " We believe the human nature 
 of Christ is a real created humanity — that the person 
 
250 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 of Christ is not a tertiuTn quid, as the Chemists say, 
 formed by the composition of two other and different 
 ingredients.'^ Not different ingredients, when one 
 part is a real created humanity, and the other part 
 the second person in the Trinity? — No, no, not a 
 tertium quid!! What then? " This person of Christ 
 has in close, intimate, mysterious union, two distinct 
 natures, as distinct in their union as before the Sa- 
 viour's birth !" Now, these two distinct natures, 
 are two distmct persons. This he will deny, for his 
 creed says they are one person, one Christ, [page 51], 
 But his creed also says [page ^b\ that they are two 
 persons : *' That which is proper to one nature, is 
 sometimes, in scripture, attributed to the person de- 
 nominated by the other natureP As his creed says 
 his Christ is but one person, and yet that he is two, 
 which will he believe ? Oh ! certainly, he will say 
 both ! — for he has adopted it with the solemnity of 
 an oath ! ! There is nothing said in the Scriptures of 
 two natures in Christ, nor of his being two persons — 
 hence the system is false. We read of the person 
 of Christ, and repeatedly "the one Lord Jesus" "the 
 one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus." Not two beings ; but a '^ mediator between 
 TWO," But he says — •« Christ has in close, intimate, 
 mysterious union, two distinct natures." All this 
 plain contradiction of the word of God, and of com- 
 mon sense, by bis creed is passed over by saying it 
 is "mysterious" — And this subterfuge is justified 
 because Paul said, " Great is the mystery of God- 
 liness." If it is a mystery, what that mystery is, 
 we can neither believe nor teach until it is revealed. 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 251 
 
 The mystery of which the apostle spoke is revealed, 
 hence is not now a mystery ; but is " according to 
 the commandment of the everlasting God made 
 known to all nations for the obedience of faith/' 
 Rom. xvi. 2Q, Yet this text is the resort of all 
 sectarians to cover their absurd doctrines. Show a 
 Reprobationer the impropriety of charging God with 
 making a certain part of mankind on purpose for 
 damnation, then of calling on them to repent, and 
 believe that they might be saved, the answer is 
 " great is the mystery of Godliness." "And so they 
 wrap it up." Micah vii. 3. — -As the gentleman has 
 again resorted to this '^Mysterious union," and 
 repeatedly made use of the words " Great is the 
 mystery of Godliness," as a warrant for his " Mys- 
 teries of iniquity," we will here notice the passage. 
 To understand the apostle we must compare his 
 writings. The passage occurs 1 Tim. iii. 1 6. " And 
 without controversy great is the mystery of God- 
 liness ; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, 
 believed on in the world, received up into glory." 
 There is no mention of the mystery of the Trinity 
 here, nor of the mystery of the Godhead, and man- 
 hood, being joined together in one person, nor of 
 two distinct natures, nor persons in one being who 
 was truly crucified, dead and buried ; yet so myste- 
 riously that nothing suffered but the manhood. 
 
 In the same chapter, in verses 14 and 15, the 
 apostle saith, " These things write I unto thee, that 
 thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thy- 
 self in the house of God." And in verse 9th tells 
 
252 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 him what the deacons must be ; " Holdmg the mi/s- 
 tery of the faith in a pm'e conscience." And 
 writing to the Ephesians on the same subject saith, 
 "Ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace 
 of God, which is given me to you ward : how that 
 by revelation he made known unto me the mystery ; 
 as I wrote before in a few words; (see ch. 1. 9.) 
 whereby when ye read, ye may understand my 
 knowledge in the m^ystery of Christ, which in 
 other ages was not made knoivn unto the sons of 
 men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles 
 and prophets by the spirit ; that the Gentiles 
 should be fellow heii^s, and of the same body, and 
 partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. 
 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, 
 is this grace given, that I should preach among the 
 Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to 
 inake all men see what is the fellowship of the 
 mystery, which from the begimiing of the world 
 hath been hid in God." Eph. iii. 2 — 9. 
 
 Notice 1st the apostle in verse 6, tells what this 
 mystery is; "That the Gentiles should be fellow 
 heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his 
 promise in Christ by the gospel." 2dly. In verse 
 3, and 5, he says the mystery is revealed : " How 
 that by revelation he made known unto me the 
 mystery which in other ages was not made known 
 unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto 
 his holy apostles and j^'^'ophets by the spirit.^^ 
 3dly. In verses 4, 8, and 9, he mentions his object 
 in, and authority for writing ; " Whereby, when ye 
 read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mys- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 253 
 
 tery of Christ ^ For *^unto me who am less than 
 the least of all saints, is this grace given, that / 
 should preach among the Gentiles the unsearch- 
 able riches of Christ; and to make all men see 
 what is the fellowship of the mystery.'*'' There- 
 fore he adds, ch. vi. 19. Pray for me, " That utter- 
 ance may be given unto me, that I may open my 
 mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the 
 gospel.^' 
 
 His words to the Romans are also to this point, 
 ch. xi. 25. " For I would not, brethren, that ye 
 should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should 
 be wise in your own conceits.'^ Again, ch. xvi. 
 25, 26. ^« Now, to him that is of power to establish 
 you according to my gospel, and the preaching of 
 Jesus Cln-ist, according to the revelation of the mys- 
 tery, which was kept secret since the world began, 
 but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of 
 the prophets, according to the commandment of the 
 everlasting God, made known to all nations for the 
 obedience of faith." Moreover, see his words to the 
 Colossians. Ch. i. 25, 26, 27. "Whereof I am made 
 a minister according to the dispensation of God, 
 which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of 
 God ; even the mystery which hath been hid from 
 ages and from generations, but now is made mani- 
 fest to his saints: to whom God would make 
 known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery 
 among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope 
 of glory.'' He adds, ch. iv. 3, 4. " Praying also for 
 us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, 
 to speak the mystenj of Christ, for which I am also 
 
 22 
 
254 
 
 in bonds : that I may make it manifest as I ought to 
 speak.'- 
 
 In 1 Cor. ii. 7, the apostle calls this mystery the 
 wisdom of God ; " But we speak the wisdom of God 
 in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God 
 ordained before the world unto our glory." That 
 is, the apostles were chosen by the will of God in 
 Christ Jesus, to make it known to all nations for the 
 obedience of faith. What the apostle in writing to 
 the Corinthians, calls "The wisdom of God in a 
 mystery, even the hidden msdom ;'* he in Eph. i. 9, 
 calls " The mystery of his will ;" and in ch. iii. 4. 
 "The mystery of Christ;'' and ch. vi. 19. "The 
 mystery of the gospel;'' and to the Col. i. 25, 26. 
 "The dispensation of God, to fulfil the words of 
 God even the mystery ;" and in iv. 3, " The mys- 
 tery of Christ;" and in 1 Tim. iii. 9, "The mystery 
 of the faith;" and in verse 16, "The mystery of 
 Godliness." Observe, The mystery, not mysteries; 
 for in all these places he is speaking of one and the 
 same thing; "Even the mystery which hath been 
 hid from ages and from generations, but now is 
 made manifest to his saints : to whom God would 
 make known what is the riches of the glory of this 
 mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ in you 
 the hope of Glory." Which Peter saith, " The 
 prophets have inquired and searched dihgently, 
 who prophesied of the grace that should come unto 
 you. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto 
 themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things 
 which are now reported unto you by them that have 
 preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 255 
 
 sent down from heaven." 1 Pet. i. 10, 12. Of 
 
 these prophets Paul saith, " These all died in faith, 
 not having received the promises, but having seen 
 them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and em- 
 braced them, and confessed that they were strangers 
 and pilgrims on the earth.'' Heb. xi. 13. "And 
 these ail, having obtained a good report through 
 faith, received not the promise ; God having pro- 
 vided some better thing for us, that they without us 
 should not be made perfect.'' Ver. 39, 40. The 
 apostles lived to see the actual fulfilment of what 
 the prophets saw by faith, and spoke of; hence they 
 could afiirm them to be true or perfect prophets. 
 That the things which were hid from the prophets, 
 VTQxe revealed \Miio the apostles, is evident from the 
 following words of Christ ; '<• I thank thee, Father, 
 Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these 
 things from the wise and prudent, (Not earthly, 
 learned, covetous men, but prophets and righteous 
 men of old. See Matt. xiii. 17.) and hast revealed 
 them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed 
 good in thy sight." Luke x. 21. In the 23d and 24th 
 verses, these babes are called disciples ; and these 
 wise and prudent, called prophets and Kings, " And 
 he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, 
 blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see : 
 for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have 
 desired to see those things which ye see, and have 
 not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye 
 hear and have not heard them." Therefore Christ 
 said to them, " unto you it is given to know the mys- 
 tery of the kingdom of God." Mark iv. 11. Hence 
 
256 
 
 saith Paiil, " Let a man so account of us, as, of the 
 ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of 
 God/' 1 Cor. iv 1. Paul was the noted apostle to 
 the Gentiles, and remarkably clear upon this mystery : 
 Peter had doubts till the great sheet knit at the four 
 corners was let down to him ; " Then Peter opened 
 his mouth and said, of a truth, I perceive that God is 
 no respecter of persons : but in every nation he that 
 feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted 
 with him." Acts x. 11, 34, 35. 
 
 Therefore by comparing the apostle's writings, and 
 also the other scriptures, it is abundantly evident 
 that this mystery is not an unknown, incomprehensi- 
 ble certain something which can neither be described 
 nor conceived. But that which hath from ages and 
 generations, been hid in God, until the fulness of 
 time which he had purposed in himself; and they 
 do harmoniously declare, that in the days of Christ, 
 it was revealed unto the apostles, and made mani- 
 fest unto the saints, and by the commandment of 
 the everlasting God, made known to all nations 
 for the obedience of faith. 
 
 " That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of 
 the same body, and partakers of his promise in 
 Christ by the gospel ;" is what was a mystery, but is 
 noiv a revelation. He calls it both a mystery, and a 
 revelation, because as he saith, it is that ^^ which was 
 kept secret since the world began, but now is made 
 manifest ;^^ '^ YaY en X\\q mystery which hath been hid 
 from ages and from generations, but now is made 
 manifest to his samts" — For " we speak the wisdom 
 of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 257 
 
 God ordained before the world unto our glory." 
 This is what he calls, " The dispensation of the 
 grace of God, which is given me to you ward," for 
 " by revelation he made known unto me the mys- 
 terif^ — " Whereof I am made a minister, according 
 to the dispensation of God which is given to me for 
 you." Therefore the gospel is not a mystery, but 
 a revelation ; and this revelation he twice calls " The 
 dispensation of the grace of God." Hence, as the 
 revelation of this mystery, or dispensation, was put 
 to the trust, or ordained to the glory of the apostles, 
 as stewards of this manifold grace of God, and as 
 Paul had put Timothy, his own son in the faith, in 
 trust with the same by the laying on of his hands; 
 he could with great propriety send him this solemn, 
 interesting letter, being at a distance from him, and 
 as he saith, " If I tarry long, that thou mayest know 
 how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house 
 of God," for without controversy [beyond dispute, 
 or confessedly'] great [mighty or important,'] is the 
 mystery [dispensation or treasure,] of Godliness 
 which is committed unto thee, as a teacher and ex- 
 ample of the flock and church of the living God. 
 Therefore it is manifest, that these words are nothing 
 to his purpose. And I cannot believe that any 
 honest, inquiring mind, after carefully comparing 
 these scriptures, can think that our apostle could 
 have in view when he wrote them, a doctrine like 
 the Trinitarian Hypothesis. 
 
 But the other part of this text, " God was mani- 
 fest in the fiesh,^' has been equally abused. It does 
 not say, God was manifest the flesh. Nor that the 
 
 22* 
 
258 
 
 <^ Very and eternal God, took man's nature in the 
 womb of the blessed Virgin. '^ But God was mani- 
 fest IN the Jlesh. Then he was not the flesh, 
 [person or Christ] that he was manifest in. The 
 apostle speaks of the same thing, in 2 Tim. i. 9, 
 10, 11. 
 
 " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy- 
 calling, not according to our works, but according 
 to his own purpose and grace which was given 
 us [apostles and elders] in Christ Jesus before the 
 world began, but is now made manifest by the ap- 
 pearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abo- 
 lished death, and hath brought life and immortality 
 to Ught through the gospel : Whereunto I am ap- 
 pointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of 
 the Gentiles." Here the same revelation and dis- 
 pensation to the Gentiles, given to the apostles, is 
 brought into view ; and what he in his first letter 
 calls, " God was manifest in the flesh ;^^ he in the 
 second says, " Is now made manifest by the appear- 
 ing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, ^^ Speaking of 
 the same thing, John saith, " For the life was mani- 
 fested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and 
 show unto you that eternal life which was with the 
 Father, and was manifested unto us.^' 1 John i. 2. 
 Surely it was not the Father it was with. In verse 
 1. he calls it "The word of life." And in his record 
 of the gospel this same word is mentioned : " In the 
 beginning was the word, and the word was with 
 God, and the word was God. The same was in the 
 beginning with God." ch. i. 2. Notice, the word 
 is twice said to be ivith God ; then to say it is the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 259 
 
 God it is said to be ivith, would be contradicting 
 both language and scripture. 
 
 The icord in Greek, is Logos, (/. e. speech or wis- 
 dotn,) and when God speaks, it is the Logos, or 
 ivord of God ; and when man speaks, it is the Logos, 
 or word of man. 
 
 I will here copy these verses as Gilbert Wakefield 
 in his translation of the New Testament has ren- 
 dered them with the note thereon. John i. verse 1. 
 "In the beginning was wisdom, and wisdom was 
 with God, and wisdom was God. 2d. The same 
 was in the beginning with God. 3d. All things 
 were made by it ; and without it was nothing made. 
 4th. What was made had life in it ; and this life was 
 the light of men. 5th. And this light shineth in 
 darkness, and the darkness hindered it not. 14th. 
 And this wisdom became flesh, and dwelt among 
 us, full of favor and truth : and we saw his bright- 
 ness, a brightness from the Father, like the bright- 
 ness of an only son. 16th. And of that fulness we 
 all received, and more abundant favor. 17th. For 
 the law was given by Moses, but this favor and this 
 truth took place through Jesus Christ. ISth. No 
 one hath seen God at any time : that only Son, who 
 is in the bosom of the Father, hath toM us of him." 
 
 The note. Logos, wisdom or reason. <• INIy au- 
 thority for this translation is Solomon,) Prov. viii. 1. 
 22 — 32.) whom I think no man can possibly deny to 
 be speaking of the very same thing as our evange- 
 list. That by the Logos of John is meant the tcord 
 of God so frequent in the Chaldee Targums, and 
 the mens,ratio et Sapientia — the mind, reason and 
 
260 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 wisdom — of the Greek and Roman philosophers 'S.xA 
 Poets, and of the Christian Fathers, is a point which 
 seems to myself at least, very clearly proved in page 
 102, and the following pages of my inquiry into the 
 opinions of the Christian Writers. In further confir- 
 mation, however, of so important a variation from the 
 common version, and which is hable to so much mis- 
 construction and censure, I shall subjoin some further 
 passages from different authors in this place, also let 
 the reader consult the Targum of Onkelos on Gen. 
 viii. 21. Jerusalem Tar gums on Gen. xxii. 4. 
 That of Jonathan on Jeremiah, xxx. 20. And the 
 Targums on Lev. xxh. 46. Amos vi. 8. and com- 
 pare this last with Heb. vi. 13. Now will any 
 man assert, that these writers regarded the luord of 
 God as a distinct being from God himself? I sup- 
 pose not. The Gi^eeks use the term Logos more 
 aptly, than we can use the term word or discourse ; 
 because their Logos signifies both discou?'se and 
 reason; since it is both the voice and wisdom of 
 God,^^ Wakefield says, " I feel no difficulty in as- 
 serting, in the most explicit and unqualified lan- 
 guage, that no man, acquainted with the writings 
 of the ancients who came to the reading of John's 
 gospel, would ever have fomid Arian or Trinita- 
 rian doctrines there if he had not come, prepared 
 with his strange ideas, to these scriptures. Such 
 interpretation equally violates all sober philology 
 and the uniform usage of other writers. But no- 
 thing better is to be expected, while the original 
 scriptures are so little read, and their phraseology 
 considered through the medium of translators only." 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY 261 
 
 Note on verse 14th. This wisdom became flesh 
 in the person of Jesus Christ who was an image of 
 his Father, or of divine ivisdom. See Luke ii. 40 — 
 52. compare xi. 49. of Luke with Matt, xxiii. 34. 
 See also 1 Cor. i. 24. " But unto them which are 
 called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of 
 God, and the wisdom of God." 
 
 In the heginning was the Logos, speech, or wis- 
 dom. As God had no beginning, we may consider 
 this beginnmg to be the beginning of creation. God 
 had a design from the beginning in making all 
 things ; hence Paul speaks of " His good pleasure 
 which he hath purposed in himself.^' Eph. i. 9. 
 Again, according to the purpose of him. ivho icork- 
 eth all things after the counsel of his own wilL^' 
 (verse 11.) The scriptures are a record of the mind 
 and will of God as revealed to men ; and it is evi- 
 dent from them that the counsel and will of God 
 which from the beginning he had purposed in him- 
 self," was, that in the fulness of time he would have 
 a Son, and that he should be " Heir of all things.^' 
 Heb. i. 2. Hence Solomon, speaking of him under 
 the character of ivisdom saith, " The Lord possessed 
 m.e in the beginning of his way, before his works 
 of old." Not another jyer^ori, nor distinct being from 
 God himself then existing. But " I was set up from 
 everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth 
 was.'* Prov. viii. 22, 23. God spake of this cha- 
 racter "set up" in his mind in early ages, saying, 
 " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, 
 and between thy seed and her seed: it [Heb. he'] 
 shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
 
262 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA'S 
 
 heel." Gen. iii. 15. Of this promised seed Paul 
 saith, "When the fulness of the time was come, 
 God sent forth his Son, 'made of a wonian.^^ Gal. iv. 
 4. " His So7i/' not " Manhoodj'^wox a mask for his 
 Son to dwell in. " Made of a woman ;" and to say- 
 he was made before, would be contradicting the 
 scriptures and Gabriel who said to Mary, "That 
 holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be 
 called the Son of GodP Luke i. 35. Israel in his 
 last words spake of this very period, " The sceptre 
 shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from 
 between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him, 
 shall the gathering of the people be." Gen. xlix. 
 10. The fulfilment of which Christ spake, Mark i. 
 15. " The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God 
 is at hand." Then the sceptre departed from Judah, 
 and the first dispensation was abolished, having 
 stood its appointed time as a figure of the kingdom 
 Christ was to order and establish, to whom the 
 gathering of the people should be ; of which Paul 
 saith, " Having made known to us the mystery of 
 his will according to his good pleasure, which he 
 hath purposed in himself: that, in the dispensation 
 of the fulness of times he might gather together in 
 one all things m Christ, both which are in heaven, 
 and which are on earth, even in him." Eph. i. 9, 10. 
 " And he is the head of the body, the church : who 
 is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ; that 
 in all things he might have the pre-eminence." Col. 
 i. 18. Hence John calls him, "The beginning oi 
 the creation of God." Rev. iii. 14. And in Ch. i. 1 1. 
 Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Alpha, 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 263 
 
 the first letter in the Greek alphabet. "It is particu- 
 larly used among ancient writers to denote the chief 
 or first man of his class or rank. In this sense the 
 word stands contradistinguished from Beta, which 
 denotes the second person — Plato was called the 
 Alpha of the wits ; Erastosthenes, keeper of the 
 Alexandrian library, whom some called a second 
 Plato, is frequently named Beta. Alpha is also 
 used to denote the beginning of any thing. In 
 which sense it stands opposed to Omega, which 
 denotes the end. These two letters were made the 
 symbol of Christianity ; and accordingly were en- 
 graved on the tombs of the ancient christians, to 
 distinguish them from the tombs of the idolaters." 
 
 He was the first in the mind of God, " Set up^^ 
 from the beginning; also the first in authority, 
 « The first-born from the dead, that in all things he 
 might have the pre-eminence.^^ Col. i. 18. Hence 
 he is called Alpha, the beginning or the first. He 
 is also the last king and lawgiver, for he abideth 
 for ever; David, Solomon, and other kings and 
 rulers, were figures of or pointing to him who is now 
 seated on the throne of David and Israel to order 
 and establish it for ever and ever. No one is to 
 succeed him, he is both a king and priest ordained 
 of God after the power of an endless life. He is 
 also "The end of the law for righteousness," 
 (Rom. X. 4.) and " The author and finisher of our 
 faith," (Heb. xii. 2.) And there was given him 
 dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peo- 
 ple, nations, and languages, should serve him : his 
 dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall 
 
264 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall 
 not be destroyed. Hitherto is the end of the mat- 
 ter." Dan. vii. 14, 28. And saith the apostle/' 
 *' Then cometh the end^ when he shall have deliv- 
 ered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; 
 when he shall have put down all rule, and all autho- 
 rity and power. For he must reign till he hath put 
 all enemies under his feet. For he hath put all things 
 under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put 
 under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which 
 did put all things under him. And when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also 
 himself be subject unto him that put all things under 
 him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 
 27, 28. Therefore he is called Omega, the end or 
 last. 
 
 But it is said, " The word was ivith God.''^ Here 
 I think our apostle had in his eye the words of Solo- 
 mon, " Wlien he appointed the foundations of the 
 earth ; then I was by him, as one brought up with 
 him; and was daily his delight, rejoicing before 
 him." He was present in the eternal mind, what 
 he was actually in the fulness of time ; for " God 
 calleth those things which be not as though they 
 were ;" Rom iv. 17. as in Rev. xiii. 8. Christ is 
 called, " The Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world ;" but he was not actually slain till he was 
 crucified on the cross. So says Peter. 1 Epis. i. 20. 
 As of a Lamb " who verily was fore-ordained be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest 
 in these last times for you.^^ So also this same 
 word was in the beginning with God, set up from 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 265 
 
 everlasting, and daily his delight, what he was act- 
 ually when the voice came from heaven saying, 
 " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased.^' Matt. iii. 17. Hence, in the beginning 
 was the word, and the word was with God, and the 
 word was God. Here it is said, the Word was God. 
 I have noticed, that it was with God ; consequently 
 not the God it was with. 
 
 That he is called God in the scriptures is true. 
 And that he has a God and Father, is equally true 
 and plain from the scriptures. And he that denies 
 the latter, must of necessity the former. Before his 
 death he said, " My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, 
 even unto death," and prayed saying, " my Fa- 
 ther, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me :" 
 Matt. xxvi. 38, 39. And at his crucifixion said, ^'Eloi, 
 Eloi, lama sabacthani? which is, being interpreted. 
 My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" 
 
 " In the beginning was the word, and the word was 
 with God, and the word was God." At first sight, you 
 might think the word meant the son. But you will be 
 convmced that this is impossible, if you will put son 
 in the place of word, and Father, or Father and holy 
 spirit, in the room of God. In the first instance, it 
 will read — In the beginning was the son, and the so?i 
 was with the Father, and the soii was the Father. 
 To say the son was the Father, is false and absurd. 
 Try the other method. In the beginning was the 
 son, and the son was with the Father and the holy 
 spirit, and the son was the Father and holy spirit. 
 This is still worse. To say the son was the Father 
 and the holy spirit, is not only false and absurd, but 
 23 
 
266 
 
 nonsensical. You must therefore conclude the word 
 cannot mean the son in any sense. And this con- 
 clusion may be confirmed by other passages from 
 the same gospel. Only a few verses below, John 
 declares — " No man hath seen God at any time ; but 
 the only begotten son hath declared the Father. If 
 the son was God, he had been seen by this very 
 apostle. But he informs us — not that the son was 
 God — nor the Father ; but that he had manifested the 
 Father's perfections to the world ; the Father's wis- 
 do7n in his instructions, the Father's power in his 
 miraculous works ; and the Father's moral good- 
 ness in his character ; so that whoever had seen the 
 son, had seen all of the Father that could he mani- 
 fested to mortal eyes ; but the son was not himself 
 that Father, nor a third part of that Father. John 
 also said that he wrote his Gospel, expressly that 
 " ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of 
 God:' 
 
 The " word'' therefore means the " power of God 
 considered as in action ;" that wisdom and power 
 which have ever been with God, even an essential 
 part of himself; and which were displayed in crea- 
 tion, in providence, in the Jewish dispensation ; but 
 especially, which dwelt in Jesus, and were mani- 
 fested in his words and works and character. (John 
 i. 1, 18; XX. 31.) 
 
 Thus, by laying aside the fables of men, and 
 carefully attending to the scriptures, we may plainly 
 discover, that in the beginning was the word, and 
 the word was with God, and the word was God ; 
 without multiplying self existent eternals, or admit- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 267 
 
 ting the idea, that the Son is the self existent God ; 
 which is in the strongest manner denying the Son 
 of God. 
 
 The gentleman is very fastidious concerning 
 prayer. We proposed through one of the Moderators 
 that Mr. M'Calla should close the discussion on 
 Tuesday evening by prayer. He refused. We then 
 suggested that the Rev. Mr. Helme the pastor of the 
 church should be requested to open and close each 
 session with prayer — It was not agreed to — But he 
 could not prevent (although quite agitated), that we 
 should devote a part of our time to this purpose. His 
 pious soul "forbade him to worship with a Heathen 
 01 Mahometan J' ^ "But (proclaimed) as he has de- 
 parted, I will now lead in prayer." How unlike 
 Him, who in the agonies of death prayed even for his 
 murderers. But from his statements our presence 
 quite unmaned him for prayer. He might exclaim 
 like one of old. " Ye have taken away my Gods, 
 and what have I more ! !" 
 
 His arguments are as doubtful as his prayers. He 
 first contended that his Christ was Jehovah, the Su- 
 preme God ; in whom were three persons, but one 
 being. But now he contends that Christ is but one 
 person, and that in this person are two distinct na- 
 tures; that is, two distinct beings. To illustrate, 
 he has brought man for the best representation in 
 the world, not as before of the Trinity, but of two 
 beings in one person. Yes reader, hear him. There 
 are " in this one person two distinct beings.^ ^ When 
 is a man two distinct beings ? Before his personal 
 existence ? Or while he is , but one living being ? 
 
268 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA\s 
 
 Or after his only person has ceased to he ? We read 
 of Antichrists — they are a plurahty. But to us 
 there is " But one Lord Jesus Christ,^' one being — 
 one person, or nature — who gave his Soul, " himself 
 an oifering for sin," — and God raised him from the 
 dead, and he is now at the right hand of God, a dis- 
 tinct being from God. The gentleman could give us 
 no Scripture proof for his double nature, double per- 
 son, double dealing Christ. When " He went into a 
 mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer 
 to God," Luke vi. 12, was it a soliloquy? Praying 
 to himself? Is it not double dealing, to claim to be 
 God, if he is ^'^ real created humanity V^ Or to 
 pretend to be man if he is "the Almighty God?" 
 Or if he is both God and man, a " God man," to 
 appear as the " One Mediator hetioeen God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus ?" Or is He really all three ; 
 a Trinity of " God the Creator," a " real created 
 humanity," and " The Mediator between God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus?" If so, will the gentle- 
 man please to define the number of persons, or be- 
 ings, there are in this Trinity according to his 
 " Mysterious" vocabulary ? To say the best of his 
 reasoning it is sophistry. 
 
 He says, that " Trinitarians teach the doctrine to 
 their children" — and brings for proof that "their ini- 
 tiation into the church is in the name of the Holy Tri- 
 nity." We presume by this he means when infants 
 are rantized. Are we to suppose by this that they 
 receive as much consolation from understanding the 
 teaching of this great mystery, as the old children do ? 
 
 He speaks as if his friends were disappointed in 
 
PUBLIC DEEATE ON THE TRINITY. 269 
 
 the " Old Soldier," that they put too much confidence 
 in him. " They had privately spoken^ as if they 
 were certain that my adversary would be defeated 
 if he once got into my clutches." "But this h not 
 my doctrine !" No ! Not now. But was it not 
 when he boasted about the " Old Soldier," " the Ken- 
 tucky racer, ^^ " O'Connell/' "Congress of the United 
 States," "the British Parliament," &C.&C.? But he told 
 them that they should not put their trust in him, but 
 in God. He says " This truth I have endeavored to 
 recognise in the present controversy . I have told 
 my IVIaker and Master in secret, that my weakness 
 and worthlessness were manifest and undeniable.'''' 
 An open confession is good for the soul ! If like 
 Balaam of old, he had gone to the Lord before he 
 let himself to put down these unoffending Christians, 
 he might have saved himself this mortification ; and 
 the Philistines who boasted m Goliath as their 
 " Battering Ram" their disappointment. The gen- 
 tleman appears to be coming to his senses, and a 
 right feeling when he says, "My weakness, and 
 ivorthlessness were manifest and undeniable.^'' He 
 has learnt a lesson ; but as Paul said of certain cha- 
 racters, he is, "Ever learning, and never able to 
 come to the knowledge of the truth. Now, as 
 Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these 
 also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds; re- 
 probate concerning the faith. But they shall pro- 
 ceed no farther ; for their folly shall be manifest 
 unto all men as theirs also was." (2 Tim. iii. 7. 8. 9.) 
 The gentleman has again lugged in the pitiful 
 and false report, charging us with saying, that if 
 23* 
 
270 
 
 "Christ was God then the devil was God ;" and to 
 make it more ridiculous he adds that it was spoken 
 in a gigling manner in the hearing of children. We 
 can prove by more than ten witnesses to one who 
 were present on that occasion that these were not 
 our words. Why did he not reply to our remarks 
 in the discussion ; and not resort to this " refuge of 
 lies.'' Drowning men will catch at straws. We 
 have already noticed the manner that we spoke of 
 the application of the term God. After all his abuse 
 of our views, he has avowed the same as follows, 
 « We admit that the devil is the God of this world, 
 and that judges are sometimes called Gods" and 
 others. — But he thinks he has a patent right to blow 
 hot and ccJd, If he can get his conscience fixed, he can 
 shoot around the stack, as well as on a straight line. 
 
 Again the gentleman quoted David (Ps. xlv. 6. 7.) 
 and Paul (Heb. i. 8. 9.) " Unto the Son he saith, 
 Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever:" this, 
 he boldly asserted, proves the Son to be the supreme 
 God, or God in the highest sense ! But this is only a 
 part of the passage. Why has he avoided in every 
 instance to quote the whole text when he has referred 
 to it ? Because he knew that it would be fatal to his 
 argument. Where is his tender conscience ? It reads 
 thus " Unto the Son he saith. Thy throne, God, is 
 for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the 
 sceptre of thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteous- 
 ness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy 
 God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness 
 above thy fellows." 
 
 Now if his statement is correct, his supreme 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITr. .271 
 
 God has a God, who hath anointed him ! And that 
 above his fellows ! And who are his fellows ? Are 
 they God the Father, God the Son, and God the 
 Holy Ghost ? Three co-equal fellows ? How and 
 why should one of them exalt another ? " Thou hast 
 loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore 
 God, even thy God, hath anointed thee" &:c. What, 
 one co-equal rev/ard another co-equal for his love 
 and obedience ? If the Father and Holy Ghost are 
 his fellows, was not the Son " anointed with the oil 
 of gladness above" the Father and the Spirit? And 
 having said that He who was thus anointed, is one of 
 the persons in the divine essence, he cannot resort to 
 the subterfuge, the "created humanity!" But he 
 says that the God anointed, and God the anointer are 
 a "plurality of persons in one divine essence." — 
 One being — not two ! Then the one God anointed, 
 rewarded and exalted himself ! ! Does this better the 
 matter ? No ! It denies the Father and the Son who 
 are two beings. As the truth saith ''T\\q living 
 Father sent me and I live by the Father. — As the 
 Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the 
 Son to have life in himself. — Ye have both seen and 
 hated both me and my Father." " He that denieth 
 the Father and the Son hath not God, but is an anti- 
 christ.^^ 
 
 To understand the words, we must remember that 
 Paul's object was to prove to the Hebrews, from their 
 own scriptures that Jesus was the Son of God and 
 superior to Moses and their prophets, hence he began 
 by saying " God, who at sundry times and divers 
 manners spake unto the Fathers by the prophets. 
 
272 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 hath in these last days (of that age) spoken unto us 
 by his Son :" then puts this question to the Hebrews 
 (i. 5.). "For unto which of the angels saith he at 
 any time thou art my son, this day have I begotten 
 thee?'^ "This day," not as his Creed says " Eternally 
 begotten," which Adam Clarke says, is "Eternal 
 nonsense." (read Ps. ii. 7.) And again "I will be to 
 him a Father and he shall be to me a Son," (Ps. 
 Ixxxix. 26. 27.) Again (Heb. 1.6.). "When he bring- 
 eth the first begotten into the world, he saith, and 
 let all the angels of God worship him." (Ps. 
 xcvii. 7.) Again the words under consideration, 
 " unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for 
 ever and ever:" "Thou hast loved righteousness, 
 and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- 
 lows." These arguments of the Apostle the He- 
 brews could not refute. Another witness saith "God 
 anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and 
 power, who went about doing good, for God was 
 with him." Hence he is called "the anointed," "the 
 Messiah," "the Christ" of God. Moses was a God 
 or Head to the Jews. Christ is a God or Head to the 
 " Glorious Church," of both Jews and Gentiles. But 
 the head of Moses was God, and saith Paul "the 
 HEAD of Christ IS God." With these views all the 
 scriptures agree. And we believe them. Now to as- 
 sert as the gentleman did, that these passages prove 
 Christ to be the most high God, "absolutely God 
 without any qualifying term,'^ is not only contradict- 
 ing David who in spirit called, him the Son of God, 
 and the object of Paul's argument, but also the posi- 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 273 
 
 tive language of the text which says, that that God is 
 his God, and that He is both " the anointed,'^ and the 
 Son of that God. And he who is so bhnd as not to 
 see it after examining the subject, must be more 
 attached to his creed and party than to God and his 
 word. 
 
 The gentleman says " When Jude calls Christ the 
 only Divine Potentate, he does not mean to contra- 
 dict Paul in his declaration, that the Father is the 
 blessed and only Potentate." No. The Apostle's 
 preaching was yea and Amen, not yea and nay like 
 the creed makers' ! Jude so far from contradicting 
 Paul, has never called Christ " The only Divine Po- 
 tentate." Potentate does not occur in his letter. But 
 he uniformly speaks of Christ and the Father as two 
 distinct beings, thus, "Jude the servant of Jesus 
 Christ, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, 
 and preserved in Jesus Christ." And when he 
 speaks of " the only wise God," he alludes to the 
 same being in contradistmction to the Son, as the 
 Son does when in prayer to his Father, he calls him 
 "The only true God." Jude emphatically speaks 
 of " certain men crept in unawares, migodly men, 
 turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and 
 denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.'' Do not those deny the only Lord God and 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who say they are one being, 
 or that Christ is the only wise God ? Jude calls them 
 " ungodly men, denying the only Lord God." How ? 
 By teaching that there are two others with the o7ily 
 Lord God, co-equal with himself. They also, ^'deny 
 our Lord Jesus Christ," holding him to be only the 
 
274 
 
 manhood of the second Lord God. Peter calls these 
 ungodly men, ^^ false teachers, bringmg in damnable 
 heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them ; 
 by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil 
 spoken o/." (2 Pet. ii. 1. 2. 3.) The gentleman 
 says, the Lard did not die. That the Son of God 
 could not die. That the human nature only suffered, 
 the mere ''manhood''^ of the second person of his 
 IDOL died. Is not this denying "Our Lord Jesus 
 Christ" that "gave himself a ransom for us? Is it 
 not denying "The Lord that bought us}" Is it not 
 what Paul calls treading underfoot the son of God 
 and the blood of the covenant?" (Heb. x. 29.) We 
 read that God " Spared not his oivn Son, but de- 
 livered him up for us all." (Rom. viii. 32.) That, 
 "we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 
 (v. 10.) That "we are redeemed with the precious 
 blood of Christ." And that God hath " made that 
 same Jesus who was crucified both Lord and Christ." 
 (Acts. ii. 36.) Therefore we "Joy in God through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received 
 the atonement." (Rom. v. IL) 
 
 The gentleman is at an utter loss to know what is 
 meant by God^s own Son, and only begotten Son. 
 His Idols entirely shut out the rays of light so that 
 his mind can not discern the simplicity of the word 
 of God. I do not wonder that he doubted upon his 
 hypothesis, how the very same being can be his 
 own, and only begotten Son — nor how another co- 
 eternal, co-equal person in the same God, can be that 
 God's own dear and only begotten Son. " It is a great 
 mystery."— No ! It is a GREAT MISTAKE ! ! ! 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 275 
 
 Or is not the following from the creed of one of his 
 brethren, gross and absurd idolatry ? " The Son co- 
 exists with God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, 
 unbegottenly begotten; God of God, true God of 
 true God." This is one of the mysteries, the gentle- 
 man says he can understand, but not comprehend I 
 And woe to him that will not lie to his conscience, 
 and say that he believes and understands it, when he 
 does NOT ! If he would give up his creed and read 
 carefully (Ps. ii. 7.) " thou art my Son, this day have I 
 begotten thee" — "When (Gal. iv. 4. Acts. xiii. 23.) 
 the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son 
 made of a woman." (Luke ii. 11.) "For unto you 
 is born this day in the city of David a saviour which 
 is Christ the Lord." And God owned or acknow- 
 ledged him at his baptism as his '• well beloved,'^ (Rom. 
 viii. 32.) "own, dear. Son," (Ps. Ixxxix. 26. 27.) " his 
 first born," (Heb. i. 3, 5.) "his full image, even the 
 brightness of his glory and the express image of 
 his person." (John i. 14. 18.) "And we beheld 
 his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
 Father full of grace and truth," in whom alone 
 dwelt the full knowledge of the invisible God that he 
 '^ might declare him." (Col. i. 15. 18.) "For he is the 
 image of the invisible God, the first born (the highest 
 in authority) of every creature ; the head of the 
 body the church, the first born from the dead ; that 
 in all things he might have the pre-eminence,' ' (Rev. 
 i. 5.) Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness and 
 first begotten from the dead, and the " prince of the 
 Kings of the earth." And this divine brightness of 
 God's glory and express image of his person, and 
 
276 
 
 fulness of the grace, knowledge, and glory of the m- 
 visible Father was never defaced nor defiled hi hmi ; 
 but he wd.s' obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross, wherefore God did not suifer him to see 
 corruption, but exalted him "far above all heavens,'* 
 at his own right hand. (Eph. i. 20. iv. 10.) I say- 
 let the gentleman read all this and the corroborat- 
 ing passages, and facts, and then he may under- 
 stand without one single doubt how and ivhy, Jesus 
 both is, and is called in truth and love, the own and 
 only begotten Son of God. — Amen. 
 
 The gentleman quotes (Isaiah xliv. 6.). " Thus 
 saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer 
 the Lord of Hosts ; I am the first, and I am the 
 last ; and besides me there is no God ;" and remarks, 
 " Candid intelligence will own, that he distinguishes 
 this divine redeemer as supreme, and as co-equal 
 with the Father and his spirit." Candid intelligence 
 then must own that the " Redeemer of Israel, who 
 saith I am the Lord of hosts, and besides me there is 
 no God," is not the Father nor his spirit. Shall we 
 believe him, or Paul who saith " But to us there is 
 but one God the Father?'^ 
 
 Again in (Isaiah xlv. 22.) " I am God and there 
 is none else," he remarks, " Does he mean to deny 
 that the devil is the God of this world ? Instead of 
 this he means to assert that the speaker is the God 
 of Heaven, an equal person with the Father in one 
 essence." Is not this asserti7ig that the Father is 
 another equal God, besides the God of Heaven? 
 Where is his conscience ? 
 
 He adds, " In the same place just referred to, the 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 277 
 
 second person of the Trinity, says ' There is no God 
 besides me, a just God and a saviour; there is noiie 
 besides me J " How does he know that it was the 
 second person that spoke ? And how does he know 
 that " He meant no denial of other supreme divini- 
 ties/' when he repeatedly ^xA positively assert s^ih^X 
 /'There is NO God beside me ?'' Now either the Son is 
 not "True God of true God/' or the gentleman 
 charges him with positively denying the Father and 
 the Spirit; for he says that it is "The SECOND 
 person of the trinity/' who asserts "' There is NO 
 God besides ME." To which horn of the dilemma 
 will he cling ? To both ? ! We believe that it was 
 God himself who spoke by the Prophet, and that he 
 meant what he said. 
 
 Again (Ps. Ixxxiii. IS.) David says of the Father, 
 " Thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most 
 high over all the earth." The very learned gentle- 
 man says, " Here are two expressions denoting su- 
 premacy, he who is most high is supreme, and he 
 who is over all is supreme." He adds, " But a good 
 rule works both ways." What ! True and false? 
 Working out palpable contradictions ? The most 
 high over all the earth alone Jehovah ; and yet two 
 more most high Jehovahs ? His " good rule" has not 
 yet worked out any evidence that " The most high, 
 who alone is Jehovah, has two in company, who are 
 equally most high Jehovahs. When he shall have 
 accomplished that, he will be able to redeem his 
 boasted pledge made at the outset, that he would 
 show his opponent's doctrine to be equally absurd 
 as to say three persons are one person, or three 
 24 
 
278 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's 
 
 beings are one being, or once one is two ! Then, if 
 these were our views, they would be absurd, him- 
 self being judge. But the " saddle is on the other 
 horse," or as Paul saith, " In so speaking thou con- 
 demnest thyself!" " Thou therefore, which teachest 
 another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that ab- 
 horrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege .?" When 
 " Benhadad king of Syria defied Israel by " The 
 gods,'' ^- The king of Israel answered, let not him 
 that girdeth on his harness boast himself, as he that 
 putteth it off." (1 Kings, xx. 11.) 
 
 Again he says, " if (the Son) our redeemer be 
 most high, and if he be over all God, then his su- 
 jivemacy should be admitted." Granted. If he be 
 over all God ! This he has yet to prove. So he ad- 
 mits, by the following remark, " A very little time 
 will serve to show you, that these expressions are 
 used to denote the supreme divinity of the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Here in the last 
 fiickerings of his last speech he has all of his boasted 
 pledges to redeem. First we are to "admit that 
 Christ is the only true, supreme, eternal God." 
 And then " A very little time will serve to show the 
 supreme divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!" 
 What is the meaning of supreine ? Can there be 
 more than one supreme ? Is supremacy equality ? 
 If three persons are co-equal in every sense, does it 
 not prevent the supremacy of each ? And if one 
 of these three supreme equals, has taken a " very 
 man" of "two more beings in one person," into 
 " inseparable union," does it not make him to be 
 superior to the other two supremes ? Is it true that 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 279 
 
 the Son is superior to the Father ? The gentleman 
 did not show in his "very httle time" what he 
 promised. But this is an age of promises — and 
 failures ! 
 
 Again, he quotes Paul's exhortation to the Corin- 
 thians " not to tempt Christ, as some of the Israelites 
 tempted God and Moses, and were destroyed of ser- 
 pents,'' (Num. xxi. 4 — 9.) of which David says, 
 "They tempted and provoked the most high God." 
 This the gentleman says is Christ. He is so " drunk 
 with the wine of abominations of the golden cup 
 of the mother of Harlots, whose name is mystery, 
 BABYLON the great," (Rcv. xvU. 3 — 5.) that he 
 calls these words of David of the past history of 
 Israel, a prophecy of Christ ; thus, " Will David 
 answer for a Prophet? He says of Christ, they 
 tempted and provoked the most high God." He 
 would make David and Paul guilty of contradicting 
 themselves as he does. So far from calling Jesus the 
 most high God, Paul in the preceding chapter of 
 this epistle says, " There is no other God but one ; 
 though there be that are called Gods and Lords 
 many 5 but to us there is but 07ie God the Father, 
 of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one 
 Lord Jesus Christ and we by him." (viii. 6.) With 
 this all his writings agree. 
 
 Again he remarks, "In Luke i. 76. Zecharias 
 says to his newborn son, John the Baptist, *and 
 thou child shalt be called the prophet of the highest, 
 for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to pre- 
 pare his way !' Here the Lord Jesus is the Highest !" 
 Does the gentleman never read the connection? 
 
280 PLUMMER AND m'cALLA's ' 
 
 Nor suppose that his hearers read? In the 1 1th verse 
 of the next chapter Luke records the anouncement 
 of Gabriel unto the Shepherds, " Unto you is born 
 this day, i7i the citi/ of David a saviour which is 
 Christ the Lord." What ! make the angel to say that 
 the most high God was born that day in the city of 
 David ? Why not read the corroborating passages in 
 (Mai. iii. 1. 2. and Mark. i. 1 — 3.) where it is said 
 that John came to ^^ Prepare the way of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ the SON of GOD." 
 
 He remarks agam, Paul says, Rom. ix. 5. " Of 
 whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is 
 over all God blessed for ever." He adds, " Here 
 we have Christ declared to be the Highest Lord, 
 and over all God, as David declared his Father to 
 be." Has David or Paul ever said that the HIGH- 
 EST Lord God over ALL has a Father ? 
 
 " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, by natural 
 descent, Christ came. God, who is over all, be 
 blessed for ever. Amen." 
 
 "See Clarke on the Trinity, No. 539; and Mr. 
 Lindsey's Second Address to the Students of the 
 Two Universities, p. 278. The common version 
 here adopted by Dr. Newcome is, " who is over all, 
 God blessed for ever." But the translation of Dr. 
 Clarke and Mr. Lmdsey equally well suits the con- 
 struction. See Erasmus. In this sense it is proba- 
 ble that the early Christian writers understood the 
 words, who do not apply them to Christ, but pro- 
 nounce it to be rashness and impiety to say that 
 Christ was God over all. The word ^ God' appears 
 to have been wanting in Chrysostom's and some 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 281 
 
 Other ancient copies. See Grotius, Erasmus, and 
 Griesbach. It is a very plausible conjecture of 
 Crellius, Slichtingius, Whitby, and Taylor, that 
 the original reading was 'r.y 5, instead of c uv. This 
 would render the climax complete, ^' of whom was 
 the adoption, of whom were the fathers, of whom 
 was Christ, of whom was God who is over all/' 
 Nor is it likely, when the apostle was professedly 
 summing up the privileges of the Jews, that he 
 should have overlooked the great privilege which 
 was their chief boast, that God was in a peculiar 
 sense their God. See Dr. Taylor's note upon the 
 text." See Improved version. 
 
 To understand these words, z/they allude to Christ, 
 we must keep in view that the first point Paul was 
 laboring to establish was, that Christ is the Son of 
 God, and Head of the new dispensation. In the 
 fourth verse of this epistle he says, " Christ is de- 
 clared to be the Son of God with power, according 
 to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the 
 dead." And that God '^ hath given Clirist to be 
 head over all things to the Church.'^ As Christ said, 
 after his resurrection, " all power is given unto me 
 in heaven and earth, go ye therefore, and teach all 
 nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,'' (the Com- 
 forter which the Father gave to the Son, and the 
 Son sent it forth upon the apostles on the day of 
 Pentecost, by which they were empowered to carry 
 into full effect that dispensation of which God had 
 given Christ to be the Head.) (John xiv. 16, 26. xv. 
 
 24^ 
 
SS2 PLUMMER AND M^CALLA'S 
 
 26, xvi. 7; Acts ii. 33.) Hence Paul said, "But 
 when he saith all things are put under him, it is 
 manifest that God is excepted which did put all 
 things under Christ. And when all things shall be 
 subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself 
 be subject unto him that put all things imder him, 
 that God may he all in all." (1 Cor. xv. 27, 28.) 
 And " The Head of Christ is God." Therefore he 
 closes this epistle in the following conclusive lan- 
 guage, "To God ONLY wise, be glory THROUGH 
 Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Hence the apostle 
 could have no such doctrme in view as our oppo- 
 nent contends for. Rom. 16 — 27. 
 
 We have now come to his last text (Luke i. 35.) 
 which is cited to prove the supremacy of the Spirit, 
 a co-equal person in the Trmity. " And the angel 
 answered and said unto her. The Holy Ghost shall 
 come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
 overshadow thee ; therefore also that Holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
 of God." These words are a complete refutation of 
 his system. But he says, that by the Holy Ghost 
 we are to understand the third " distinction^^ in the 
 Godhead. Gabriel explains it to be " the jyoiver of 
 the Highest." The person born of Mary, he says 
 is the second "distinction" in the Trinity, or rather 
 the Manhood of that " distinction ;" no. He is the 
 Highest himself ! But Gabriel says, that " He shall 
 be called the SON of God ;" and in verse 32, " He 
 shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the 
 HIGHEST ; and the Lord God shall GIVE unto 
 
PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITY. 283 
 
 him the throne of his Father David." Which shall 
 we beheve, him or Gabriel? But he is in doubt 
 himself; he says, " Whether the title here, (the 
 Highest) bQ understood of the Father or of the Spi- 
 rit, it is well known that they who, like Ananias 
 and Sapphira sin against the Holy Ghost, sin against 
 God." This is true, therefore his hypothesis that 
 the "Spirit and power" of God is a person or being 
 distinct from God is false. We think he doubts his 
 articles, at least the third person. His last text, 
 and the one brought to explain it, together with his 
 remarks, are against the point he would sustain. His 
 efforts and arguments are suicidal, like the animal 
 that in attempting to swim cuts its throat. 
 
 Thus we have gone through with the gentleman's 
 last speech. And like those preceding, it is an utter 
 failure. And he must have felt it in his conscience, 
 when he said my weakness is manifest and unde- 
 niahle. We assure him that the iveakness and fal- 
 sity of his creed is equally manifest and undeniable. 
 And that we feel by this investigation confirmed in 
 " The faith once delivered to the saints." "And this 
 we confess unto thee, that after the way which ye 
 call heresy, so ivorship we the GOD OF OUR FA- 
 THERS, believi7ig all things which are written in 
 the law and the prophets : and have hope toward 
 God : and herein do we exercise ourselves, to have 
 always a CONSCIENCE void of offence toward 
 God, and toward men." Acts xxiv. 14. 16. We 
 are happy also to learn that many who came to the 
 discussion bigoted sectarians, have abandoned all 
 
284 PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE TRINITr. 
 
 creeds for the Holy Scriptures; and now acknow- 
 ledge but " ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, 
 ONE GOD and FATHER of all, who is ABOVE 
 a//." Eph. iv. 5, 6. And we do sincerely wish by- 
 all the preciousness of the truth of God, and the 
 solemnity of its eternal interests, that the same happy 
 result may be experienced by our opponent. 
 
 Reader: — Sectarians to sustain their systems, 
 " darken counsel by words without knowledge.'^ 
 Job xxxviii. 2. " They speak great swelling loords 
 of vanity, because of advantage." 2 Pet. ii. 18. 
 Jude 16. They will not "consent to wholesome 
 words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 but are proud and doting about questions and 
 strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,'^ 1 Tim. vi. 
 3—5. But " THE WORDS OF THE SPIRIT," 
 by the Prophets, and upon the Tables of Stone, by 
 Christ and his apostles, were " words easy to be 
 understood^'' 1 Cor.xiv. 9, even " a pure language,^^ 
 Zeph. iii. 9, and ^' plain sound speech that cannot 
 be condemned :" 2 Cor. iii. 12. Titus ii. 8. " The 
 words of ETERNAL LIFE." John vi. 68. 
 
 " Men's books with heaps of chaflf are stor'd ; 
 God's book doth golden grains aftbrd : 
 Then leave the chaff, and spend thy pains, 
 In gathering up the golden grains." 
 
NOTE. 
 
 Much has been said upon the following language 
 from Isaiah, chap. liv. 5th verse. " For thy Maker 
 is thine husband." It is said that in the Hebrew, 
 the termination is in the plinal, thus, " thy Makers 
 is thine husbands." The whole passage and its 
 connection will show from the manner in which Gk»d 
 is spoken of in the singular, that we are not to mi- 
 derstand that there is a plurality of Creators. 
 
 " For thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of 
 hosts is his name ; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One 
 of Israel ; the God of the whole earth shall he be 
 called. For the Lord hath called thee as a woman 
 forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, 
 when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a 
 small moment have / forsaken thee ; but with great 
 mercies will / gather thee. In a little wrath /hid 
 my face from thee for a moment; but with ever- 
 lasting kindness will / have mercy on thee, saith the 
 Lord thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of 
 Noah unto me; for as /have sworn that the waters 
 of Noah should no more go over the earth ; so have 
 /sworn that /would not be wroth with thee, nor 
 rebuke thee." 5 — 9. 
 
 *• It has been urged by trinitarian writers, that the 
 Hebrew word rendered God, is Elohim or Aleim, 
 and of a plural termination, though construed with 
 a verb in the singular ; thus God created may be 
 rendered literally, Gods he created. From this irre- 
 
 (285) 
 
(286) 
 
 gularity in the Hebrew language some trinitarian 
 writers would infer^ a plurality of divine persons. 
 But other writers on that side of the question, par- 
 ticularly Calvin, sensible of the weakness of this ar- 
 
 • j 
 
 gument have fairly given it up, and owned there is 
 no force in it. Our Lord Jesus Christ, and his apos- 
 tles in quoting passages from the Old Testament, 
 where the word Elohim occurs, translate it always 
 by Theos, or God, in the singular. After this, no 
 more needs be said on the subject." 
 
 In Wilson's Hebrew Grammar, the following rule 
 in relation to Hebrew nomis occurs : 
 
 " Words that express dominion, dignity, and ma- 
 jesty, are commonly put in the plural.^^ Hence the 
 application of the word "Elohim" to any exalted 
 character, or dignified being, cannot be given as 
 evidence to prove that there is contained in such a 
 being, a plurality of persons. It should be observed 
 here that although in the New Testament, the plural 
 pronoun is not ONCE applied to God, and perad- 
 venture in the Old Testament not more than FOUR 
 times, yet in the Bible, God is denominated plainly 
 by the singular term, in many thousand instances. 
 If therefore the decision of this great and important 
 question, viz : a " plurality of creators" must depend 
 on the number of plural pronouns that are applied 
 to him in the sacred oracles, the evidence will be 
 against it in proportion of thousands of the singular, 
 to one of the plural. 
 
 Trinitarians cannot produce one book of Jewish 
 authorship of any note that teaches a trinity of per- 
 sons in God. Revelation inculcates no such doctrine 
 
(287) 
 
 nor did tradition even favor it prior to the corrupt and 
 dark age, of the third and fourth centuries, in which 
 this monstrous absurdity was originated at the Council 
 of Nice, and which was proclaimed as the standard 
 of Orthodoxy, by a meagre minority sustained by 
 the civil authorities. Let the facts speak aloud for 
 themselves — for who can resist the power of Truth. 
 
 ^^Josephus a native of Egypt, but a Christian 
 priest'' relates "that 2048 bishops met at Nice, and 
 that the Emperor commanded that the Creed drawn 
 up by the bishop of Jerusalem should be read in 
 the Synod. 318 bishops embraced it, 1730 differed 
 in various ways, neither agreeing in their general 
 sentiments, nor any one article of Faith." 
 
 ^^ Ismael Ibn Jili, a Mohammedan historian of 
 great and extended reputation" says, "The afore- 
 said 318 bishops, moreover assenting to the ordinance 
 of Constantine, set forth the Christian Faith in a 
 diiferent manner from what had been current as 
 such heretofore." 
 
 "But it is a surprising circumstance, that 1730 
 bishops assembled from all parts of the Roman Em- 
 pire, however much they might differ from one an- 
 other in other points, should yet all agree in rejecting 
 the Nicene Creed; and that only 318, not a sixth 
 part of 2048 bishops that were called to this Council, 
 should adopt it." 
 
 From this view of things, it is manifest, that the 
 Council of Nice, cannot be considered as a fair re- 
 presentation of the Christian Church at the time it 
 was held ; nor can the Creed that was adopted, by 
 those comparatively few bishops that were permit- 
 
(288) 
 
 ted to sit and vote in it, be received as a just and 
 true expression of the general sentiments of Chris- 
 tians at that period." 
 
 From the foregoing account it can be plainly dis- 
 cerned how the falsely called orthodox system was 
 originated and finished — having been patched up 
 and pieced out at four different councils. Hence 
 all the modern Creeds, Articles, and Confessions 
 of Faith, of established churches in Christendom, 
 hang upon these corrupt councils of designing men, 
 influenced solely by the love of power and self ag- 
 grandizement ; and not upon the word of God. 
 
 The following extract is from a work recently 
 published by a highly respectable Jew in defence of 
 their faith, in one only true and living God. " What 
 Israelite from the mission of Moses, to the destruction 
 of the second temple, ever believed in an adjunct 
 deity ?" 
 
 It is worse than idle to refer to the Bible in the 
 original, or any other tongue to support the fabrica- 
 tions of those corrupt bishops at the council of Nice. 
 
 There would be no difticulty in religious matters, 
 if mankind would totally discard ALL creeds and 
 inventions of men, which have confused the world 
 for more than fifteen centuries. All should consult 
 the book of inspiration and unite upon that blessed 
 gift of God. 
 
 THE END. 
 
.: 4^,-. 
 
 .^*' ' ■* , 
 
 ^i^y--'. 
 
 ■ ^^:-' 
 
 - ^ "' , 
 
 k■^■-." "r"