some great and good men, in their zeal to defend this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject to human comprehension. How vain the attempt, experience has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, however well designed or ably conducted, never yet have led to any thing but greater darkness. "Who can by searching find out God? Who can find out the Almighty to perfection?"

But though I readily admit that efforts to explain what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have misled some in their exertions to acquire religious knowledge, or given occasion to others of stumbling, yet I am not prepared to admit that the great body of Trinitarians have given just occasion to charge them with a denial of the unity of God, or with opinions subversive of this. You certainly ought not to deny them the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description of which language is not framed, perhaps is not in its nature adequate. They must discuss such subjects by using figurative language, by using terms which (if I may be indulged the liberty of speaking thus) approximate as nearly to the expression of the ideas that they mean to convey, as any which they can select. If there is any obscurity in these general observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the remarks that are to follow.

Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief, you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that you may compare this with the doctrine of divine unity, and judge for yourself whether it is

subversive of it or not. I cannot refuse my assent to a proposal so reasonable; nor do I feel any inclination to shrink from the task of stating our belief, and then to proffer the excuse, that every thing respecting the subject is too mysterious and recondite to be the object of distinct contemplation. What we do believe can be stated-what we do not profess to define or explain can be stated, and the reasons why we do not attempt definition or explanation: and this is what I shall now attempt.

I must not, however, be understood as pledging myself that those, in general, with whom I am accustomed to think and act, will adopt my statement, and maintain that it exhibits the best method of explaining or defending the great doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so often charged with adherence to forms and modes of expression contained in creeds, we use as great a variety of language, in giving instruction with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, as with respect to the other doctrines of religion. In regard to the statement which I shall make, I can say only, that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, with my clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a statement to which they will adhere. It is the result of investigation, and reflection on the subject, as it appears to be exhibited in the Scriptures, and in the writings of the leading divines whom I have been able to consult.

I believe, then,

I. That God is ONE; numerically one, in essence and attributes. In other words, the infinitely perfect Spirit,

the Creator and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and the same perfections, so far as they are known to us. To particularize the Son possesses not simply a similar or equal essence and perfections, but numerically the same as the Father, without division, and without multiplication.

II. The Son (and also the Holy Spirit,) does in some respect, truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, differ from the Father.

I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may find writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have stated the subject of my first proposition in a manner somewhat different. But, after making due allowance for inattention to precision of language, the difficulty of the subject, and the various ways which men naturally take to illustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many of them would dissent substantially from the statement now made. Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession exhibits the same view.

The words are,- "The divine essence is ONE, which is called, and is, God, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible." Art. I.

The Confession of Helvetia (written A.D. 1566) declares, that "God is ONE in essence or nature, subsisting by himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible," &c. It adds, "We detest the multitude of gods, because it is expressly written, The Lord thy God is one God," &c.

The Confession of Basil (A.D. 1532) declares, that there is " ONE eternal, almighty God in essence and substance, and not three Gods."

The Confession of the Waldenses states, "that the Holy Trinity is, in essence, one only true, alone eternal, almighty, and incomprehensible God, of ONE equal indivisible essence."

The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says, "We believe and acknowledge ONE only God, who is ONE only and simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite,"

&c.

The English Confession (A. D. 1562) states, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "be of ONE power, of ONE majesty, of ONE eternity, of ONE godhead, and ONE substance. And, although these three persons be so divided that neither the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the Holy Ghost, nor the Father, yet, nevertheless, we believe that there is but ONE very God.'

The Confession of Belgia (A.D. 1566) declares, that "there is ONE only simple and spiritual essence, which we call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite," &c.

The Articles of the English Episcopal Church declare, that 66 'there is but ONE living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions," &c.

The Confession of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, revised at the Synod of Dort (A.D. 1618, 1619) declares, "We believe that there is ONE only and simple spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite," &c. (See Harmony of Confessions.)

With these agrees the Westminster Confession, approved by the General Assembly of Divines in A. D. 1647, adopted by all the Presbyterian Churches in Great Britain and America, and assented to by a great part of the Congregational Churches in New England. Its words are, "There

is but ONE only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," &c. West. Con. p. 32.

Now, is this the denial of the divine unity with which we are implicitly charged? Can Unitarians present a more complete assertion of the divine unity, than is presented by these symbols of different denominations of Christians, who admit the doctrine of the Trinity?

But, admitting our statement of the divine unity to be correct, you will aver, probably, that my

second proposition is subversive of the first. Whether this be so, or not, is what I now propose to investigate.

The common language of the Trinitarian symbols is, "That there are three PERSONS in the Godhead." In your comments upon this, you have all along explained the word person, as though it were a given point, that we use this word here, in its ordinary acceptation, as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself that this is doing us justice? Is it not evident from Church history, that the word person was used, in ancient times, as a term which would express the disagreement of Christians in general, with the reputed errors of the Sabellians, and others of similar sentiments, who denied the existence of any real distinction in the Godhead, and asserted that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were merely attributes of God, or the names of different ways in which he revealed himself to mankind, or of different relations which he bore to them and in which he acted. Some of the principal Fathers and Councils meant to deny the correctness of such assertions, by using the word person to designate some real, not merely nominal distinction in the Godhead-to signify that something more than a diversity of relation or action, in respect to us, was intended. They seem to me to have used the word person, because they supposed it to approximate nearer to expressing the existence of a real distinction, than any other which they could choose.

We profess to use the word person, merely from