every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say, that the Father is one God, and the Son is another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that he begat another God. And from the Father and the Son proceedeth another who is God; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son proceedeth another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though, their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it."*

The Bishop, a few pages farther on, adds, "This is the principal, if not the only characteristical note whereby to distinguish a christian from another man; yea, from a Turk; for this is the chief thing that the Turks both in their Koran and other writings upbraid christians for, even because they believe a Trinity of persons in the divine nature. For which cause they frequently say, they are people that believe God hath companions; so that, take away this article of our christian faith, and what depends upon it, and there would be but little difference between a Christian and a Turk."

If the Bishop is correct, I ask with the deepest concern, "Who then can be saved? There is not probably one Trinitarian in a thousand that could define the doctrine correctly, without the Bishop's copy to write by. "So * Bishop Beverage's Private Thoughts, Part II. p. 48, 49.

hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright." And yet we are assured it is as dangerous to get it wrong as it is difficult to get it right.

Dr. Barrow describes the doctrine of the Trinity thus: There is one divine nature or essence, common unto three Persons incomprehensibly united, and ineffably distinguished; united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of subsistence; that there is a mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one; a communication without deprivation or diminution in the communicant ; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, without precedence or succession, without proper causality or dependence; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit issuing from both, without any division or multiplication of essence."*

To one who seeks for ideas with words, what can all this signify? It is totally unintelligible. It is a mere jumble of words without sense or meaning. Professor Stewart, one of the most learned Trinitarians in the world, who stands at the head of his profession, speaking of the definitions of person, or distinction in the Godhead, says, "I do not, and cannot understand them. And to a definition I cannot consent, still less defend it; until I do understand what it signifies. I have no hesitation in saying, that my mind is absolutely unable to elicit any distinct and certain ideas, from any of the definitions of person in the Godhead, which I have ever examined."+

And why cannot Trinitarians be understood? Is it not because the writers themselves had no ideas to express ? St. Augustine being questioned on. this subject, said, 'Human learning is scanty, and affords not terms to exBarrow's Works, Vol. iv. p. 307. London, 1831.

་

+ See Leonard's Unity of God, p. 237.

B

press it;

it is therefore answered, three persons, not as if that was to the purpose, but somewhat must be said, and we must not be silent."—Aug. de Trin. L. 5, c. 9.

This is partly true and partly false. It is true that he who says, God is three persons, does not speak "to the purpose." But it is not true that the poverty of language, or the scantiness of learning, makes it impossible for Trinitarians to be understood. It is because "somewhat must be said," and they talk words without ideas. One who has 66 distinct and certain ideas," can express them. When I say God is a spiritual, self-existent, and eternal Being, I know what I mean, I have ideas. Others, too, can elicit ideas from my words. If Trinitarians bad ideas of the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, if they meant any thing by it, they could certainly tell what they meant. Others, too, could understand them. They could "elicit ideas from their words."

Bishop Tillotson, speaking of the "jargon and canting language" of the schoolmen, says, "I envy no man the understanding these phrases; but to me they seem to signify nothing but to have been words invented by idle and conceited men, which a great many ever since, lest they should seem to be ignorant, would seem to understand; but I wonder most, that men, when they have amused and puzzled themselves and others with hard words, should call this explaining things."-Tillotson's Works, Vol. vi. p. 383.

"The language of scripture is the language of common sense; the plain, artless language of nature. Why should writers adopt such language as renders their meaning obscure; and not only obscure, but unintelligible; and not only unintelligible, but utterly lost in the strangeness of their phraseology."-Dr. Dwight.

“Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be under

stood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air."-St. Paul.

But Trinitarians render the way to heaven obscure not only by a single definition, but by definitions essentially contradictory. As soon as it is admitted that the terms of salvation are not sufficiently defined in the Bible, and that men have a right to attempt an improvement of the gospel, the church is liable to be perplexed and embarrassed with as many different editions of it as there are writers. One man has the same right to claim a hearing that another has. This right has not been overlooked by Trinitarians, who have furnished us with a great variety of contradictory hypotheses, each professedly the true one.

Mr. Baxter says, "Abundance of hereticks have troubled the church with their self-devised opinions about the Trinity, and the person and nature of Christ. And I am loth to say how much many of the orthodox have troubled it also, with their self-conceited, misguided, and uncharitable zeal against those they judged hereticks."

But imitating the modesty of Mr. Baxter, I will not now press this argument.

SECTION III.

DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

We do not object absolutely to the use of unscriptural phraseology, if it be employed for the sake of convenience; though it can never be essential to the creed of the true believer. We admit the phrase "Divinity of Christ," but we object to the manner in which it is often expounded. Whether Trinitarians generally explain and apply it in an intelligent manner, according to the true import of language, the reader is requested to judge for himself, after a careful and candid examination of the following exposition.

As the word "Divinity" is not in the Bible, its meaning must be sought elsewhere. According to our most approved English dictionaries, the first definition of the word Divinity is Deity, and Deity means God. Having defined the word Divinity, we may substitute for it the well known and scriptural word God. Then instead of the phrase Divinity of Christ, we shall have the phrase God of Christ. The phrase Divinity of Christ, Deity of Christ, and God of Christ, are all synonymous. It now remains only to show who the God of Christ is. Let Christ himself determine. "I ascend unto my Father and to your Father, and to my God and your God."—John xx. 17. Christ here teaches us that his Divinity, or God, is his Father. We believe the Supreme Divinity to be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles teach the same doctrine. St. Peter calls Jesus "The Christ of God."-Luke ix. 20. St. Paul, addressing believers, says,