DEAR SIR,

      You acknowledge that, when "Luther, Calvin, and others, made a bold stand against the corruptions of the church, the Lord prospered their labors;--that light began to dawn, and pure religion began to revive and smile upon the benighted world." This is an acknowledgment not very favorable to your cause; because, it is well known that these reformers taught the very doctrines you are endeavoring to destroy. This I need not undertake to prove, for you surely cannot deny it. "The Lord wonderfully preserved them, and prospered their labors." Yes, that is the fact. God owned his truth, and the truth made the people free. The reformation took place in the sixteenth century. And it is remarkable that all the churches in Christendom, which cast off the delusions of Popery, still retained the doctrine of the Trinity as a fundamental article of the Christian faith. However they might differ from each other in smaller matters, they all perfectly harmonized in this one principle. The confession of the Helvetic, the French, the Belgic, the English, the Scotch, the Polish, the Saxon, the Bohemian, the German churches, the churches of the Swedes and Danes, besides the different denominations of dissenters in England: These all agreed, that the doctrine of [9] the Trinity is not only scriptural, but fundamental in christianity. And moreover, if the truth of this doctrine depended upon historical evidence of the fact that the ancient fathers, as they are commonly called, and the successors of the apostles, believed the doctrine, as Trinitarians now now do; the question is at once settled beyond fair debate by Milner, Simpson, and Horsely, in their patient researches, and faithful extracts from the writings of the first ages of Christianity. But as we are not on this ground, we shall apply to the law and the testimony for the establishment of the Trinity.

      And here I am met at the first step, with an old hackneyed objection: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible." And pray, sir, where will you find the word "Unity in the bible employed to express the nature and modus existendi of the Godhead? The poverty of human language in expressing any thing relative to the divine nature, compels us to express our notion of the divine simplicity by the term unity. And this word by all anti-trinitarians is triumphantly used not only in all their arguments, but likewise gives name to a large portion of them who style themselves Unitarians, without suspicion of difficulty, or dread of falling into mystery, which they so lavishly use in a way of scoff and banter against their opponents. "In truth, Jehovah, as it respects his pure existence, is no object of number, but above number; because number implies limitation. To his understanding, or, which is the same thing, to his being, there is no number. Ps. 147. 5. (marg.) But when he reveals himself acting for salvation, then only he gives us to understand, that this simplicity exists in a personality perfectly compatible with it, and that this personality is engaged in a covenant of offices under the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to accomplish a work, which shall be the admiration, contemplation, and delight of all created intelligences forever."

      I know, as well as you, that the words Trinity, Incarnation Essence, and such like, are not to be found in the Bible; but I also know, that the truths, to which these words relate, and which we design to express by them, are not only to be found there, but are the very sum and substance of that book. Without any breach of charity it may be [10] affirmed, that the objection is raised merely for cavillation. When men lack strength of argument, they are driven to this pitiful shift to get rid of an opponent they are not able to refute. You appear to me to have had more need for this kind of objection, than any writer of similar pretensions, that ever came under my inspection.

      We are not afraid to acknowledge that "the word Trinity is not found in the Bible." But we fearlessly avow that the truth conveyed by that term is to be found there. The Greek word Trias, or Trinity, was introduced into the church in the second century, to express the threefold personality, or triune appellation of the Godhead. This and the terms before mentioned were employed by the fathers of the church in opposition to various heretics for a clearer or more full and definite expression of their doctrines, and have been very properly retained to this day. While there are false prophets, and seducing spirits in the world, who, having departed from the faith, are industriously employed in disseminating damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them; the orthodox christian may safely adopt this as a watchword, whereby he may be distinguished from an enemy of the Truth. As the use of all terms is to communicate knowledge, and as these terms convey the notion of the truths we wish to set forth, we shall disregard the quibble about their not being found in the Bible, and use them whenever we have occasion for them. If we are to be confined to terms of scripture entirely, it will be absolutely necessary to use the scripture only in the two languages of Hebrew and Greek, in which they were originally written, otherwise the objection, if of any force at all, lies against every translation in the world, and renders your own performance of little account, seeing you have used many words and phrases not to be found in the Bible.

      As I desire to write for common edification, though with little hopes of your conviction, I shall endeavour, before I enter fully into the subject, to show what we understand by the terms, trinity, person, essence, mystery, &c. as commonly employed in this controversy.

      By the word essence, we mean the Divine Nature, the Theion, the Theotes, the Godhead, which is self-existent, [11] underived, and eternal. In this divine nature or essence there is found, according to the book of Revelation, a threefold personality, with personal properties and personal characters ascribed to each, and who are called Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and we call these, Three Divine Persons; who appropriate to themselves the incommunicable name or title Jehovah. These two principles laid together, which must be equally true, if the authority of revelation is to be regarded, may be made to harmonize with themselves, and all other parts of the sacred volume, by conceiving that the unoriginated essence is an inseparable unity of three coequal and coessential subsistences, which, beyond the low ideas of human composition or comparison, are a distinguishable Trinity. A plurality in unity is inferable from the noted passage in Deut. 6. 4. which Unitarians triumphantly oppose to the doctrine of the Trinity: "The Lord our God is one Lord:" which in the original is Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah. Here the word Jehovah denotes the incommunicable essence; and the word Elohim implies a personal plurality in that essence. As the former name relates to the divine incommunicable nature of the Deity, so the latter characterizes him as the moral governor of the world. They are frequently joined together in order to shew, that though the essence be one and the persons three, they are reciprocally pledged in every promise, and in every covenant engagement, revealed to man.

      By the word persons, when applied to the Godhead, we do not understand, some separate existences of a different nature; but united personal distinctions in the same nature. The terms person and essence are neither synonymous nor convertible; and therefore it is acting a very disingenuous part in our adversaries to confound them, and then make us say, there are three essences and consequently three Gods. We think we have spoken plainly when we have said that, "though each person be of the essence; yet the three together do constitute THE ESSENCE; which is inseparably connected with each of the persons in willing and acting in the economy of man's redemption."

      In our contemplations on this great subject, the distinction between a human and a divine person ought to be particularly attended to, as it would in some measure free [12] the mind from perplexity, and save a great deal of time and unnecessary debate. Peter, James and John, were three persons, but they were separated from each other; they had only the same kind of nature, which is generally called a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with another person. They were likewise as many beings as they were persons, each one having his own proper being, separate and distinct from all other persons or beings of human kind. But none of these things are applicable to the divine persons in the Godhead; for they, however distinguished by their personal characters, and properties, are never separated, as having the same divine essence or nature. And moreover, this nature is the same individual nature of the persons in the Godhead, and because the Divine Being or essence is but one, therefore the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is the very same; and this is what we understand when we say, there are three persons in the Godhead of the same substance, equal in power and glory, and do constitute the only living and true God. But why should we be obliged to explain ourselves so often on this subject? We repeat it again, that we use the word person and such like terms, merely from the poverty of language; merely to designate our belief of a real distinction in the Godhead, and not to describe or explain how three are one and one three, but to express our belief of the fact which revelation has discovered and ought never to be combatted with the "voice of Reason" which you have set up to clamor against it. It is one thing to be assured of a truth, another to answer all the difficulties that encounter it. You are well assured of the underived existence of the Deity, but when you will give me an affirmative definition or description of that existence, I will pledge myself to furnish you with one, of the modus existendi of the personal distinctions in the Divine Essence. Try the eternity of God by the same rule, and what can you do with it? "What is the eternity of God? You answer by telling me that there never was a time, when he did not exist, and never can be one, when he will not exist. True; but then what was time, before the planetary system, which measures it, had an existence; and what will time be, when these heavens and this earth [13] shall be blotted out? Besides, passing over this difficulty about time, you have only given a negative description of God's eternity; you deny certain things of him, and then aver that he is eternal. Yet because you cannot affirmatively describe eternity, you would not refuse to believe that God is eternal. Why then should I reject the belief of a distinction in the Godhead because I cannot affirmatively define it?" (Stewart's Letters to Channing, p. 37.)

      You have laboured hard, and so likewise has your Unitarian brother Thomas Smith in a late production against Trinitarians, to shew that a trinity of persons in the Godhead is subversive of the doctrine of the Divine Unity, and therefore untrue. But not only have you failed in giving a true representation of our views of that subject, but you have also failed in being able to tell us what the divine Unity is, about which you can talk and preach and write so familiarly. You never do it. "It is," says the writer last quoted, "a clear point I think that the Unity of God cannot be proved without revelation. It may perhaps be rendered faintly probable. Then you depend on Scripture proof, for the establishment of this doctrine. But have the Scriptures any where told us what the divine Unity is? Will you produce the passage. The oneness of God they assert: But this they assert always, in opposition to the idols of the heathen--the polytheism of the Gentiles--the gods superior and inferior, which they worshipped. In no other sense have the Scriptures defined the ONENESS of the Deity. What then is oneness, in the uncreated, infinite, eternal Being? In created and finite objects we have a distinct perception of what we mean by it. But can created objects be just and adequate representatives of the uncreated ONE? Familiar as the assertion is, in your conversation and in your sermons, that God is one, can you give me any definition of this oneness, except a negative one? That is, you deny plurality of it; you say God is but one, and not two, or more. Still I ask, in what does the divine Unity consist? Has not God different and various faculties, and powers? Is he not almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, just and good? Does he not act differently, i. e. variously, in the natural and in the moral world? Does his [14] unity consist, then, appropriately in his essence? But what is the essence of God? And how can you assert that his unity consists appropriately in this, unless you know what his essence is, and whether oneness can be any better predicated of this, than of his attributed?"

      "Your answer to all this is; 'the nature of God is beyond my reach; I cannot define it. I approach to a definition of the divine Unity only by negatives.' That is, you deny the numerical plurality of God; or you say there are not two or more essences, omnisciences, omnipotences, &c. But here all investigation is at an end. It is possible to show, what constitutes the internal nature of the divine essence, or attributes; or how they are related to each other; or what internal distinctions exist? About all this, revelation says not one word; certainly the book of nature gives no instruction concerning it. The assertion then, that God is one, can never be fairly understood as meaning any thing more, than that he is numerically one; i. e. it simply denies polytheism, and never can reach beyond this. But how does this prove, or how can it prove, that there may not be, or that there are not distinctions in the Godhead, either in regard to attributes, or essence, the nature of which is unknown to us, and the existence of which is to be proved by the authority of the Scriptures only?"

      "When Unitarians, therefore, inquire, what that distinction in the Godhead is, in which we believe; we answer, that we do not profess to understand what it is; we do not undertake to define it affirmatively. We can approximate to a definition of it, only by negatives. We deny that the Father is, in all respects, the same as the Son; and that the Holy Spirit is, in all respects, the same as either the Father or the Son. We rest the fact, that a distinction exists, solely upon the basis of revolution. In principle then, what more difficulty lies in the way of believing in a threefold distinction of the Godhead, than believing in the divine Unity." (Stewart's Letters, pp. 45, 46.)

      I have given the above quotation, not only because of its sterling worth, but likewise that it may be seen, what we mean when we assert that the doctrine in question is [15] a mystery. It will also show the mistaken zeal of those reasoners of the present day, who in their rage to simplify every doctrine of revelation by theories, fabricated to reduce the mystery of its doctrines by "the voice of reason," afford a specimen of the effrontery of that incurable ignorance, which is ignorant even of its own want of knowledge. With an air of insult you tell us (p. 18) that "Mystery is one of the names of the whore of Babylon, written in large letters on her forehead." You forgot this, when at the bottom of your 26th page, being pressed with a difficulty, you come forward and say: "Should any ask how it is that the Father in all his fullness dwelleth in the Son? I reply in Paul's words, "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." This is quite a handsome manoeuvre to get rid of the mark of the whore, by slipping in Paul between you and danger, while poor Trinitarians have no refuge whatever, because they modestly acknowledge their ability to dive into those things which are altogether unfathomable.

      The grand objection against the doctrine of the Trinity on account of its seeming absurdity and contradiction, may be either true or false, absurd or otherwise, according as it is explained or understood. If we say, that three are one, and one three, exactly in the same sense, the thing is not only absurd, but impossible; it is a contradiction. But to say, the Divine Being is only one in essence and three in person; that he is three in one respect, and only one in another respect, is no absurdity, no contradiction; but may be an eternal truth, founded in the nature of things. We feel not ourselves at all answerable for all the inconsistent and unjustifiable definitions and explanations that Trinitarians have given on this subject whether in their public symbols and standards or otherwise. But some of them I believe have written so guardedly and definitely on the subject, that our opponents must lack either knowledge or honesty, if they will persist in palming upon us the absurd notion of three distinct essences or Gods.

      Dr. Isaac Barrow, one of the first of Christians and scholars, says, "That there is one Divine Nature or Essence, common unto three persons, incomprehensibly [16] united, and ineffably distinguished; united in essential attributes. distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine perfection, each different in order and manner of subsistence; that there is a mutual existence of one in all, and all in one; a communication without any 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: these are notions which may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stagger our faith in assenting that they are true; upon which we should meditate, not with hope to comprehend, but with dispositions to admire, veiling our faces in the presence, and prostrating our reason at the feet of wisdom so far transcending us." (In Simpson's Plea for the Deity of Jesus, p. 351.)

      Dr. Horsely, I believe the greatest and most successful modern defender of the catholic doctrine of the Trinity and Deity of our Saviour, says; "I maintain, that the Three Persons are one Being; one by mutual relation, indissoluble connection, and gradual subordination: so strictly One, that any individual thing, in the whole world of matter and spirit, presents but a faint shadow of their unity. I maintain, that each person by himself is God; because each possesses fully every attribute of the divine nature; but I maintain, that these persons are all included in the very idea of a God; and that for that reason, as well as for the identity of the attributes in each, it were impious and absurd to say, there are three Gods;--for, to say there are three Gods, were to say there are three Fathers, three Sons, and three Holy Ghosts: I maintain the equality of the three persons, in all the attributes of the Divine nature--I maintain their equality in rank and authority, with respect to all created things, whatever relations or differences may subsist between themselves: differences there must be, lest we confound the persons, which was the error of Sabellius but the differences can only consist in the personal properties, lest we divide the substance, and make a [17] plurality of independent gods." (Horseley's Tracts, p. 261.)

      If you still ask how these things be, and still call for demonstration? I reply; first rid yourself of difficulties and mysteries, and show how you can investigate a single attribute of the Great and Blessed God without perplexity, before you make unreasonable demands and unjustifiable requirements of others. Tell us how the spiritual essence of God fills heaven and earth, without extension or division into parts. Can you form an idea of a power, no more exhausted by the creation of a world, than by the production of an insect? How is God above the heavens, and beneath the earth, yet hath no relation to high or low, distant or near? What relation has he to time, who is no older this day, than when he made the world; to whom that which is past is not gone, and that which is future, is not to come? We could press you with a thousand such questions respecting the essence and attributes of God. But we will lower our demands; tell us "how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child,--how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth, by the south wind." A little lower still; define to us the essence of a straw, or of a single grain of sand, before you tauntingly insult, and reproach us with the mark of the whore of Babylon, because we profess to be unable to find out God, or study the Almighty to perfection.

      But I come now to examine your book a little on this subject. I shall be brief, as I wish to save time and patience, and especially as this point is so closely connected and interwoven with the Deity of Christ, which will be our next subject, which if established, confirms this of course, for they stand or fall together.

      You admit that those who hold to three persons in God, do not use the term, in its proper or common, but in a qualified sense, so as to exclude the notion of three distinct beings. This is the fact, as I hope I have made fully to appear. "What this qualified sense should be, has long puzzled divines, and in no proposition are they more divided." I am not quite so sure there is such discrepancy amongst those who hold the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. But let it be so; does this prove the doctrine untrue, or only shew that even good men may err through the weakness and the pride of understanding in diving into [18] things beyond their depth. Were you not puzzled here, when in your former work, (p. 9.) you wrote thus: "I believe there are three distinctions in Godhead; but I cannot express them in more appropriate terms than those used by the inspired Apostle--Father, Word and Holy Ghost?" In my reply, it was admitted that there are three distinctions in the Godhead, and I maintained then, as I do now, that they are personal distinctions, inasmuch as the personal pronouns, I, thou, and he, are applied to each indiscriminately, and gave this as a reason why we used the term persons, when applied to Godhead for the want of a better term. It is not a little remarkable that you have dropped your belief respecting the "three distinctions in the Godhead," as it does not appear in your late work, though formerly acknowledged to have the sanction of an inspired Apostle. You assign the cause of this perplexity among divines on this subject to be, that "no idea of it is to be found in revelation or reason." Pray, good sir, do not bring in reason here to settle a point about a matter which is entirely of revelation, and which demands reason's assent, not her demonstration. As for revelation, is there no idea of this doctrine in the admission of "three distinctions in Godhead," Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? These three are one, you also admit in the work before us. Your words are: "They are one, or agree in their testimony." (p. 8.) Are you not afraid of making persons in the Godhead, when you can use the personal pronouns they and their, with so much familiarity? It is admitted (page 11) "that the Scriptures speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--and that these three are one in some respect, none will deny." They are "one in spirit, purpose and mind." (p. 9.) Thank you, sir, for this concession; I now hold you to it. Is not the spirit, purpose, and mind of the Father, eternal? Of this there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. (Deut. 33. 27. Eph. 3. 11. Job 23. 13.) So then likewise must the spirit, purpose, and mind of the Son, and Spirit be. (Micah 5. 2. Heb. 9. 14.) From these texts we find that God is eternal, the Spirit is eternal, and that the goings forth or emanation of the Son, (like the rays from the sun in the heavens) have been of old, from everlasting, or, as the word is, from the days of eternity. [19]

      We admit then that these three are one, in spirit, purpose and mind, unchangeably and eternally; while the oneness of Christians respects their mystical union to Christ, being joined to the Lord and one spirit, and likewise as it respects their accordance with and conformity to the divine mind in that imperfect resemblance they bear to the moral image of their maker, by whom they are created in knowledge righteousness and true holiness. That the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is "principally founded on 1 John 5. 7." as you assert, we do by no means admit, though it is often quoted in proof of that point. It can be well spared in this contest, and yet the doctrine suffer no loss in respect of its confirmation. We know it is a disputed text as to its genuineness. But it is not a little curious to see how you commence war against it; first, by criticising away its common interpretation to make it capitulate upon your own terms; and, as if this were not sufficient, you set up the usual outcry of interpolation and corruption against it, with a design no doubt of weakening its force against you;--"not found in Griesbach's Greek Testament--not found in the Syrian Christians' Bible--many learned men reject it," &c. And yet after all you are so flexible and good-natured as to be "unwilling to reject it." This admission is made no doubt with the greater facility, because you relied upon the success of your criticism, as you imagined, in destroying its testimony in favor of Trinitarians. We will make a few remarks on this two-fold mode of warfare which you have employed against this text. I will not quote the whole paragraph, but present the idea contained in it, and shew that it is incorrect, and the criticism of no account. 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are ONE. Now you affirm, that "from reading the context, it is plain, that the matter testified of, is that Jesus is the Son of God. That the three are one, or agree in their testimony; as in the next verse, the three witnesses on earth agree in one. To say these three are one God, would contradict the original; for the word hen, translated one, is in the neuter gender, and cannot agree with the word God." It will agree, sir, with the word Theion, which is [20] neuter, and means Divinity or Deity. This word the Christian Fathers used with great frequency and familiarity when they intended to include the three principles in the divine nature, in the to Theion; which will certainly much better connect with the text in question, than the word marturian, rendered testimony, and which is feminine. Your idea is, that the words translated, "these three are one," only mean, one in testimony, or that their testimony is one; but this word in the original being of the feminine gender, will not unite with hen in the neuter. Besides, I aver that the writer of the text was not speaking of testimony, but of persons; else why does he use the word treis (translated three,) in the masculine gender? Or why is the expression so remarkably varied in the next verse, these three agree in one, not these three are one? I believe these remarks may suffice here; not made with imposing confidence; and if pronounced worthless, verily, I believe yours will be found no better.

      Respecting the authenticity of this text we will say a few things. It is admitted that it is wanting in some ancient versions and manuscripts. But to this day it cannot be determined whether it was interpolated by Trinitarians, or omitted by the Arians and other Unitarian hereticks of that age. It is more likely to have been silently omitted by the latter in their copies, as a testimony so decided against them, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it; especially seeing they were not pressed for the want of it, having ample proof of the doctrine without, as all modern Trinitarians are ready to admit. But suppose it to be an interpolation; does not that circumstance prove, that the Trinity was a doctrine very early held and contended for, by the Christians of the first ages? But why must we suppose, that the passage is at all an interpolation? Because Griesbach, Marsh, Porson and others have asserted and proved it? The proof is contested manfully, and it is though successfully, by Archdeacon Travis, and others who have advocated the text. But were the defect of positive proof in favor of the passage much greater than its opponents have been able to make out, it would still be with me an argument of its authenticity, that the omission of it (and any body [21] may try it) breaks the connection, and wonderfully heightens the obscurity of the Apostle's discourse. As you appear to attribute great weight to the decisions of Dr. Griesbach, whose Greek Testament is "reckoned to be the most correct," and who considers the text in question a corrupted one, I will make an observation or two for your information and others who are under the influence of great names.

      While the great desert of Griesbach is admitted by some of the best men, and while it is believed that he would not willingly, or conscientiously misrepresent facts or arguments, for, or against any reading, yet his decisions are far from being uncontroverted, by many of the best critics of his own countrymen. His whole classification of manuscripts, which lies at the very foundation of all his decisions in regard to the text, is rejected by Matthai as worthless, who Dr. Middleton calls the best Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, which he did in 12 vols. (between A. D. 1782-1789) and which approaches much nearer the Textus Receptus, or the text in common use, than the edition of Griesbach with whom he is at variance. Dr. Lawrence likewise, in his Essay upon the classification of manuscripts by Griesbach's account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous; and that the principles, by which he estimated the value of manuscripts, and of course the genuineness of particular readings, are fundamentally erroneous." The character of Griesbach, frees him from the implication of design in misrepresenting facts or arguments, but he undertook a work which was too great for one person to accomplish, or even a whole generation of critics. One word more about this text. We again repeat it, that if it were added or put in, it was done in opposition to the heretics; and this was a sufficient evidence of the firm belief of the doctrine of the Trinity at that time. But if it was expunged by the Anti-Trinitarians, the Arians, &c. who, as St. Ambrose observes of them, were remarkable for this sort of fraudulent dealing with the Scriptures, then there was a great deal of reason for restoring it. Be it however genuine or otherwise, the same sentiment is found in other parts of [22] Scripture, and the ancient Christian writers abound with sentiments and expressions of a similar nature. Polycarp died expressing his gratitude to God in these words:--I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, through whom, to thee, with him, in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now, and to all succeeding ages. Amen. I do testify, says Tertullian, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are undivided one from another. Again:--Two Gods or two Lords we never have named with our mouth: not as if the Father were not God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and each of them God. Again:--I every where hold one substance in three cohering together. He alludes to this text also when he says, "These three are one (essence) not one (person); in like manner as our Lord hath said, I and my Father are one (essence) having regard only to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number." St. Cyprian seems to have a full quotation of this text, with little variation:--"The Lord saith, I and the Father are one." And again, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is written--"And these three are one." (See Simpson's Plea for the Deity of Jesus, p. 294.) The above remarks will serve as a reply to that part of the sermon of your Unitarian brother Smith in pages 34 and 35, where this text has met with a similar treatment, only a little more hostile, for it finds no mercy, it gets no quarters, and is not suffered even to breathe. They also rebut his statement (in page 38) against the testimony in favor of the Trinity from ancient writers. But if this will not satisfy, I refer you both to Horseley's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestly, upon the historical question, of the belief of the first ages in our Lord's Divinity. A more successful and triumphant refutation of Arianism and Unitarianism is not to be found. The great champion of the Unitarians is made to succumb, and, as Gibbon observes, "The Socinian shield of Dr. Priestly has repeatedly been pierced by the spear of Horseley."

      Your attempt to explain away the import of the Hebrew word Elohim, translated God, is truly unfortunate, and serves to show, to what lengths a man will go, and to what miserable shifts he is often driven in a desperate [23] cause. This noun of plural termination, regularly formed from its singular, is employed by the historian of the creation in the very first line of his history; and in that short account, he uses it thirty times, and perhaps five hundred times more in one form or other in the five books of his writings. Now, is it not extraordinary, that Moses, the man of God, who was above all things careful to guard his people against idolatry, should in the very beginning of, and all the way through his Law, make use of a word for the name of God, which led them to think of a plurality, when the language afforded other words in the singular number that would have answered his purpose equally as well? What might be his reason? Upon the supposition of a plurality of persons in the Divine Nature it is easily accounted for, but not in a satisfactory manner upon any other. He meant, or rather the Holy Ghost, by whom he was inspired to write his history, meant, to give some hints and intimations of a doctrine more clearly to be revealed in future ages.

      But you can account for it by the application of a rule in Robertson;s Hebrew Grammar:--"A plural put for a singular denotes greatness and excellency." This rule applied to Elohim, the plural name of God, makes it express "dignity and majesty." For the same reason it is "given to Moses,--to the molten calf of Aaron,--the idol Baal-berith--Dagon,--Ashteroth,--Baalzebub, &c. &c. tho' each is in the singular, yet each is called Elohim, God, in the plural." Hence it is inferred that "these idol worshippers expressed their particular idol in the plural, because of its supposed dignity, majesty and excellence." (pp. 9, 10.) Truly this is humiliating enough! By this ray of light emitted from a Hebrew Grammar, you have succeeded in placing the tremendous name of God among the idol of the heathen. Sir, I am truly ashamed, to think that a critic, a scholar, and a sage interpreter of God's holy word, should give such occasion to the Philistines to triumph.

      It is well known that the Heathens worshipped a plurality of Gods. If therefore they gave them plural names on any occasion, it is nothing more than might have been expected, without any rule of grammar to explain the reason [24] about it. Besides, it is not improbable, but the errors which prevailed among them, respecting the multiplicity of their gods, might take their rise from the Hebrew Elohim; and they might choose to speak of their deities in a plural form in imitation of this name. It is readily admitted, that in the Old Testament, the word God has various applications; it is applied to men, to magistrates, to idols. But it is not possible in any instances of this nature, to mistake the meaning. The adjuncts or context, always guard effectually against mistake. The words God and Lord are never applied to creatures without some diminutive character annexed to them, by which they are plainly designated from the true God; hence idols are called strange gods, (Deut. 32. 16.) molten gods, (Exod. 34. 17.) and new gods. (Jud. 5. 8.) So when applied to men there is also something in the context, which implied that whatever characters of honor are given to them, yet they are subject to the divine control. Inferior beings are never called God or Gods, simply or absolutely. When God says to Moses, see I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, no body supposes that any of the divine perfections were communicated to, or predicated of him, but plainly that he was in God's stead, as God's minister to inflict the plagues that he designed to bring on that stubborn monarch and his servants, by which he should be rendered formidable to them; not that he should have a right to receive divine honor from them. Wherever, therefore, the word God is used, the writer has added explanations of his meaning, which seem to place what he intended to assert, beyond the reach of fair debate. When the word is put absolutely, without any additional character of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it is always to be understood of the Great God. Is a mistake here possible!

      But to show that your grammar rule is deficient and inapplicable, and consequently will not aid you in the attempt to destroy the doctrine of a plurality in Deity, try the strength of it upon the following texts where plural nouns are used in connection with singular verbs. Job. 35. 10. Where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night? The word maker is plural; where is God my MAKERS? Eccl. 12. 1. "Remember thy Creator," the word [25] is plural, Creators. Eccl. 9. 1. Wisdom (Wisdoms) hath builded, &c. Isa. 54. 5. For thy maker is thy husband, the Lord of hosts is his name. Here also the Hebrew substantives maker and husband are both plural. In all this there is nothing strange to a Trinitarian, seeing he believes, and can so easily prove, that the world and all men in it were created by a trinity of persons in a unity of essence. Gen. 1. 26. "And God said let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." Gen. 3. 22. "And the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) said, behold the man is become like ONE OF US." The word Jehovah is in the singular number, and expresses all the "dignity, majesty and excellence" that belong to Deity; and therefore, there is no necessity of resorting to the adoption of irregular grammar to do it, according to your theory; but Jehovah being immediately followed by ELOHIM, a plural noun, does it not plausibility, if not demonstrably, substantiate the doctrine for which we contend? I know how you, and the Arians, endeavor to evade the force of this argument, by introducing into your scheme an instrumental Creator, a subordinate God, or a super-angelic something, brought into existence somewhere between time and eternity, and made a copartner in the work of creation; and under this view, apply the above texts. But I trust we shall be able to shew, that such a theory is absurd and visionary. It surely does not very well become you, to say, that you "know not what the real sentiments of Arius were, having never seen them, but through the coloring of his enemies;" while, coloring or no coloring, you are, (according to the uncontradicted statements of all historians,) retailing from the pulpit and the press, nothing new, but the old worn-out, and often refuted arguments of that ancient heretick. And can it be possible that you are ignorant of this, when there is on record such ample and uncontradicted evidence of what the sentiments of this troubler in Israel were, (without the "coloring of his enemies;") from the open avowal and full adoption of the same by his successors, and more recent votaries and followers; who, not willing to own the name of their ancient father on account of its odious unpopularity, wish to pass under the self-assumed name of Unitarian, or Christian? Permit me here, to suggest, I [26] hope without the implication of effrontery or petulance, that if you would open Dr. Rees's Cyclopedia, Art. Arians, you might have your ignorance of Arian sentiments measurably, if not wholly removed, by seeing an abstract of the real opinions of the ancient Arians, as they are given by Dr. Cave, and other, in the words of Arius himself; and also further particulars on the general subjects of his heresy. See also, The Religious World Displayed, by the Rev. Robert Adam, vol. 2nd. Art. Arians, and Unitarians. This is one of the best works of the kind I know of, for general and impartial information on the rise, progress, &c. of the different sects and denominations in the world.

      Before I close the letter, which is already longer than I at first intended, let me very briefly drop before you a few scripture proofs more, on which Trinitarians place no small reliance for the establishment of their belief. I design not to enumerate, but barely select those passages which are best adapted to my purpose in such a limited production as this must necessarily be; and especially as it will be further supported by the establishment of the doctrine of the Saviour's Divinity, which will be the subject of my next letter.

      Ps. 48. 16. And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent ME. The speaker in this verse is Christ, who in ver. 12. calls himself the first and the last; and declares himself to be sent not only by the Lord God, but also by his Spirit. Isa. 61. 1. The Spirit of the LORD GOD is upon ME, because the Lord hath anointed me, &c. The speaker again in this passage is Christ, and therefore, the text applies as the one preceding.

      We shall proceed to the New Testament for proof on this subject, where, if it were necessary, we could produce upwards of one hundred places in which the three persons of the Divine Nature are distinctly mentioned together, either in the same verse, or in the course of the context. In Matt. 3. 16, 17, at the baptism of the Saviour, there appears to be a sufficiently plain and sensible demonstration of the doctrine of the sacred Trinity:--"Jesus ascending from the water--the Spirit of God, descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well [27] pleased." What do you think of the Holy Ghost in a bodily shape like a dove, (Luke 3. 22.) descending and lighting upon Jesus? Was it an operation of the Godhead only; a qualitative virtue? No, it could not be; for qualities, operations, and acts, cannot assume bodily shapes, nor any thing but what is in itself substantial. This circumstance, not only demonstrates to my mind the personality and divinity of the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity, but likewise shows the reason and declares the import of our Lord's commission given to his disciples, Matt. 28. 19. Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. As a full and clear, yea, even a sensible demonstration of the Trinity was made at the beginning of the gospel, to use the words of Augustin: "The Father by a voice; the Son in the form of a man; the Holy Spirit under the figure of a dove;" even so in its continuance and application the divine Three in One are continually presented as a proper object of worship in every instance of baptism rightly administered in the name (not names) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If being thus baptized we are not dedicated to the worship and service of the sacred Three, then what else can it mean? If this is not the fact, then the whole Christian world (with a very small and to be sure not a very honorable exception) have been deceived. The primitive fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanagoras and others were all wrong, for they inculcated the very sentiment in their writings. Richard Baxter, who was a man of the most consummate abilities, as well as uncommon piety, says, "I unfeignedly account the doctrine of the Trinity, the very sum and kernel of the Christian religion, as expressed in our baptism.--The doctrine is neither contradictory, incredible, nor unlikely."

      Acts 2. 32, 33. "I shall maintain," says Dr. Horseley, "that the three persons are distinctly mentioned, in a manner which implies the divinity of each. 'Jesus--being by the right hand of God exulted and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost'--of the Father--para tou patros--The Father: the substantive, with the article prefixed, describes a person, whose character is to be the Father--Paternity is the property, which individuates the [28] person: but from whom is the first principle thus distinguished? From his creature? From them he is more significantly distinguished by the name of God. Not generally therefore from his creatures, but particularly, from the two other persons mentioned in the same period--Jesus and the Holy Ghost. And since this is his distinction, that he is the Father of that Son, from whom, together with himself, the Holy Ghost proceeds; it follows, that the interval, between him and them, is no more than relation may create; that the whole difference lies in personal distinctions, not in essential qualities." The same great writer admits that "our knowledge of the personal distinctions is so obscure, in comparison of our general apprehensions of the general attributes of the Godhead; that it should seem, that the Divinity (the to Theion) is rather to be generally worshipped, in the three persons jointly and indifferently, than that any distinct honors are to be offered to each separately."

      1 Cor. 12. 4-6. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit--of administrations, but the same Lord--of operations, but the same God." Here are the three persons, with the common order of naming them inverted, which shows that the Apostle considered it a matter of indifference upon the principle of their equality, otherwise, this would not have been the case.

      2 Cor. 13. 14. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." Here the unity in trinity is presented as the source of blessedness; as well as the foundation of our hope, and the object of our worship. That there is a real and not only a nominal distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that they are frequently spoken of in the holy scriptures in such terms as we ordinarily use when we speak of three persons; that, although the Son be often spoken of as really and truly a man, yet many things are said of him, which cannot agree to a mere man, or to any created being whatsoever; and that there are such things also spoken of the Holy Ghost, as cannot be accommodated unto a creature, cannot be denied by any man, who will but interpret the holy scriptures according to the ordinary sense and signification of [29] the words thereof, and not according to his own prejudices, or pre-conceived opinions.

      But "the doctrine of the Trinity among the Jews is esteemed one of the greatest errors." (Smith's sermon, p. 39) Yes, and for this very reason, they refuse to adopt our New Testament, because they see it taught there. This argument about the Jews is much in our favor; and I much wonder at Mr. Smith, for giving us the advantage of it. We conceive it to be of considerable weight. Let us hear what Mr. Levi (whose sentiments are strictly Judaical) says, in the free and open avowal he has made in his correspondence with Dr. Priestly, once the champion of Unitarianism in England. He avows, that, "the divinity of Christ,--his pre-existence, and power to abrogate the ceremonial part of the law; as also the miraculous conception, are all taught in the Gospels;--and the ceremony just mentioned," i. e. baptism, "points out the essential qualifications of a Christian: consequently, he that does not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be a Christian, if the Gospels be true." (Letters to Dr. Priestly in 1789, p. 24) What is this but an acknowledgement or declaration, which can amount to nothing less than that, were they [the Jews] to become Christians, the Trinitarian side of the present question, is that to which they would adhere as a truth taught in the Gospels. And is it not a fact that all Jews converted to Christianity do receive the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Deity of Jesus Christ as taught in the N. Testament. The divine inspiration of this book not being believed by the Jews, is the reason why they reject its doctrines as erroneous. Remove their infidelity, and establish their conviction of the divine authority of the N. Testament, and you remove their prejudices against the Christian Trinity and the proper Divinity of the Son of God. They no more take up stones to cast at him for making "himself God." Can Arians and Socinians boast of a single converted Jew in their ranks? Why press upon us Jewish objections, and why raise up against us Jewish opposition, when those very objections are in our favor? Verily, we have not much to fear when the allies of infidelity are brought in to testify against the truth, who acknowledge [30] at the same time, that a man cannot be a Christian without "believing the doctrine of the Trinity, if the Gospels be true."

[LBWS 9-31]