,.vv ^' *' ^''"'''«'"" ^;.,i, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 \ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 •J 
 
 Section CT?^ »-/ •N/'/p"- 
 
PL.E A 
 
 CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 BY ROBERT W. LANDIS, 
 
 Desine quapropler 
 
 Exspuere ex animo rationem: sed magis acri 
 Judicio perpende, et, si tibi vera videtur, 
 Dede manus: aut, si falsa est, accingere contra. 
 
 LucsET. Lib. a. 1039. 
 
 I speak as (o wise men; judge ye what I say. — Paul. 
 
 1832. 
 
22^t?Jrltlf> apQprding to Act of Consfress, in the y^ov i C30, hy 
 Robert W. Lanbis, in the Clerk's office of the District Court, 
 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
REC. NOV 1860 
 
 The design which I had in view in preparing and 
 publishing the following work, was to furnish those, 
 who are not possessed of the means of examining 
 larger treatises, with a brief, comprehensive summary 
 of the evidences in favour of the doctrine of the tri- 
 nity. 
 
 I have therefore advanced but little original argu- 
 ment on the subject. My aim was, not to be original, 
 but useful. I have collected the chief of my argu- 
 ments from some of the most celebrated writers in fa- 
 vour of this doctrine. And finding that their argu- 
 ments were generally stated in better and more forcible 
 language than any in which I could express them, I 
 have copied many of them verbatim. 
 
 I wish it plainly understood, that I have not adduc- 
 ed the historical evidence in favour of this doctrine, 
 because I deemed the scriptural insufficient to esta- 
 blish it. My jJrimary appeal is to Scripture. But 
 the manner in which Unitarians conduct the contro- 
 versy on this subject, renders it, at least, desirable, that 
 a work embracing both the scriptural and historical 
 evidences in favour of the doctrine of the trinity, 
 should be within reach of every sincere inquirer after 
 truth. It is to be wondered at, that some who profess 
 to have much knowledge relating to this subject, 
 should make no scruple of boldly asserting, that 
 a2 
 
''The Christian church knew nothing of the doc- 
 trine of the trinity, until sometime in the fourth 
 century,''^ and that '' The ancient Jewish church had 
 no knowledge of a plurality or trinity in the divine 
 essence." Yet such declarations are frequently made 
 by some who profess to be " masters of Israel." 
 
 But the above is not a solitary instance of the unin- 
 genuousness of Unitarians. Having watched the bear- 
 ing of the Trinitarian controversy for some time, I 
 have more than once been amused when I have 
 beheld them turning, and twisting, and tugging 
 with those passages of Scripture which are favoura- 
 ble to the doctrine of the trinity, and the deity of 
 Jesus, in order to give them a rendering different 
 from the only obvious one. And then, after they 
 had added a little to some, as in Rom. ix. 5, and 
 taken away, a clause from others, as in Rev. i. 11, 
 and turned others from their most obvious mean- 
 ing, as in Heb. i. 8, they turn about and tell us that 
 our ''doctrine is supported only by controverted pas- 
 sages of Scripture!" 
 
 " Quern ad finem sese effrenata jactabit aucUicia?" 
 
 They also charge us with believing ^'shocking 
 absurdities ;" and they maintain this charge in a 
 manner truly remarkable. They begin with saying, 
 that they believe that " the docti'ine of the incarnation 
 is a shocking absurdity j'^ that "the doctrine of the 
 trinity is a monstrous absurdity;''^ that "the doc- 
 trine of the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost 
 has no foundation in Scripture, 7ior will it stand the 
 test of reason;'' that " no reasonable being could 
 possibly believe the (irrational doctrine of the atone- 
 
ment,^^ SfC. And consequently, because they believe 
 these doctrines to be absurd, therefore we believe 
 " 7nonstrous ahsurditiesP'' I shall not object against 
 the Unitarians taking all from the Trinitarian ranks, 
 who can apprehend the cogency of reasoning so de- 
 monstrative. 
 
 -It must certainly be gratifying to every sincere 
 friend of truth to find the Unitarians giving up one by 
 one those passages which they have been accustomed 
 to urge against the Deity of Jesus, and the personality 
 'and deity of the Holy Ghost. It is manifestly evi- 
 dent, that every admission of the inconclusiveness of 
 any such objected passage, is made, not without much 
 of the same kind of feeling as is exhibited by an indi- 
 vidual when an old and ej'/eeme^ friend bids himy«re- 
 wellfor ever. But " as more just notions respecting 
 the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures have 
 slowly made their way," one passage after another 
 has been dropped from the Unitarian roll. They re- 
 luctantly part with them ; but there is no other alter- 
 native. 
 
 It will not be denied that it is the duty of every be- 
 liever of the Bible, to examine, and satisfy himself on 
 the question. Whether the doctrine of the trinity be a 
 doctrine of revelation ? The consequences of rejecting 
 it, on the supposition that it is, are serious and alarm- 
 ing. Either Trinitarians, or Unitarians are guilty of 
 gross idolatry.* If the Jehovah of Trinitai'ians be the 
 
 * "I do not wonder that you Calvinists entertain and express a 
 strongly unfavourable opinion of us Unitarians. The truth is, there 
 neitlier can, nor ought to be, any compromise between us. If you 
 are right, we are mot Christians at all ; and \Swe are right, 
 Tou ARE GROSS IDOLATERS." Dr. Pricstley. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 true God ; Unitarians, as they worship an essentially 
 different being, worship a God not revealed in the 
 Scriptures. If he be not the true God, Trinitarians 
 themselves are guilty of the same enormous sin. It 
 certainly is, if any thing can be, essential to our salva- 
 tion, to love, worship, and honour God. But how 
 shall we honour him in whom we do not believe ? 
 The plea, that " God will not punish us for an error in 
 our judgment," is absurd here : because, as he has 
 given us a revelation from heaven for the express pur- 
 pose of showing us the way to eternal life ; if we, with 
 this revelation, do not understand what is essential to 
 our salvation, the sin, as it cannot be God's, must be 
 our own. Why then should it not be punishable, as 
 well as any other? 
 
 Then let every one who realizes the importance of 
 his soul's salvation, carefully, and in the fear of God, 
 examine this all-important subject. No one, thus seek- 
 ing for truth, ever sought in vain. For " If thou criest 
 after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for under- 
 standing ; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest 
 for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou under- 
 stand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge 
 of God:' Prov. ii. 3—5. 
 
 R. W. L. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 4th, 1832. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Peeliminakt Observations, page 1 — 3 
 
 Part I. Relating to the Personalitt and Divinity of the 
 J3.0X.1 Ghost. 
 
 Chap. I. The Personality of the Holy Ghost proved, — Personal char- 
 acters ascribed to him. — Objections answered, 3 — 11 
 
 Chap. II. The Deity of the Holy Ghost proved by his Works, 
 Attributes, Names, and Worship. 11 — 18 
 
 Chap. HI. Objections against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, answer- 
 ed. 18—21 
 
 Part II. The Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Chap. I. The Plenary Divinity of Jesus Christ proved by his ac- 
 tions. — Remarks. — Creation ascribed to Him. — Objection to the 
 argument for his Deity deduced fi'om his being- tlie Creator 
 of all things, answered. — The preservation of all things ; the 
 government of all things; the act of giving and restoring life; 
 the forgiveness of sin; the act of giving eternal hfe; and the act 
 of judging the world, ascribed to him in the Scriptures. — Objec- 
 tions against the argument for his Deity deduced from his ac- 
 tions, answered. — Consequences of rejecting the Deity of Christ, 
 in a note. — 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, particularly considered. 22 — 50 
 
 Chap. II. TVie Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ proved by his 
 attributes. — Eternity, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, 
 and Immutability ascribed to him in the Scriptures. 51 — 57 
 
 Chap. III. The Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ proved by his 
 Barnes and Worship — He is in the Scriptures directly called 
 
via TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 God, the Lord of Glen-, the true God, the Mighty God, the 
 Lord God of Israel, the Most High God, the Great God, Jeho- 
 vah. — His worship also establishes his Deity. — He had divine 
 worsliip paid him before his Incarnation; while on earth; and 
 after his ascension, by angels and inspired men. 58 — 86 
 
 Chap. IV. Objections against the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ 
 answered. 87 — 109 
 
 Chap. V. The opinioits ivhich the ancient Jewish Church held re- 
 specting the Messiah. — They had ample means of ascertaining a 
 knowledge of his character. — They held him to be tlie Son of 
 God, the Redeemer, God, and Jehovah. — It is shown from this 
 that they held his Supreme Divinity. — They paid divine worsliip 
 to tlie Messiah: and yet they held that no creature should be 
 tlius woi-shipped. 110 — 125 
 
 Chap. VI. The Christian Church in the times of the Apostles and 
 immediately after, held the doctrine of the Supreme Divinity of 
 Jesus Christ. — This provcil, 1st. by tlieh- \j\vi\ icsUiiiony.— Tho 
 testimony of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermes, Clemens Romanus, 
 Ignatius, Poljcarp, Justin Martyr, Irenxus, Melito, Fabian, 
 Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Andronichus, 
 Tertullian, Hippolites, Minucius Felix, Origen. — Dr. Priest- 
 ley's ignorance, in a note — The testimony of Gregory Thauma- 
 turgus, Cyprian, Novatian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius 
 of Rome, and Metliodius. 126—142 
 
 Chap. VII. The ancient Jeivs and Pagans bear festimmiy that the 
 doctrine of Christ's j^lenary divinity was held by the primitive 
 Christian Church. — 1. Tiie testimony of tlie Jews; 2. The 
 testimony of the Heathen cotcmporarics of the Christians, — 
 Sentorius, Phny, Hierocles, Celsus, and Lucian. 143 — 148 
 
 Chap. ATII. The primitive Christians held the Supreme Divinity of 
 Jesus Christ, proved by t]i£ fact, that all who rejected it were con- 
 demned by, and expelled from, the Christian Church as heretics. — 
 The cases of the Cerinthians, Ebionites. — Of Marcion, Theodo- 
 tus, Artemon, Noetius, Sabellius, Beryllus, Praxeas, Paul of Sa- 
 mosata, and of Arius. — The case of Macedonius who denied 
 the personality of the Holy Ghost. 149 — 160 
 
 PART III. — Additionai, evidence in favoch of the DocxnurE 
 
 OF THE TniNlTY. 
 
 Chap. I. Scriptural evidence of a plurality and trinity in the God- 
 head, exclusive of those passages which speak only of the divinity of 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 
 
 Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. — The Trinity in Unity. — The 
 precise point in dispute stated. — The unfairness of Unitarians 
 in this conti-oversy. — Mysteries in Religion. — Scriptural Evi- 
 dences of a plurality in the divine essence. — Scriptural evidences 
 of a precise trinity in the Godhead. — 1 John v. 7, considered in a 
 note, — Scriptural evidences of a Trinity in Unity. 161 — 187 
 
 Chap. II. The primitive Christians believed and taught the Doctrine of 
 the Trinity. — 1. Their own testimony adduced in support of 
 this. — 2. The testimony of tlie ancient Jews. — 3. It is further 
 evident when we consider that in the primitive Church all who 
 denied it were expelled as heretics. 188 — 197 
 
 Chap. III. The Jewish Church, loth iefore and after Christ, held a 
 Plurality and Trinity in the Godhead. 198—206 
 
 Chap. IV. The heathen nations in all parts of the tvorld, held the doc- 
 trine of a Triad in the Divine Nature. — The Hindoos, Persians, 
 Egyptians, Greeks, tlie Empires of Thibet and Tangut, Scandi- 
 navians, Romans, Germans, Gauls, Japanese, Chinese, and the 
 American nations of Indians, Iroquois, &c. 207 — 214 
 
 Chap. V. Objections against the Doctrine of the Trinity ansiuer- 
 ed. 215—227 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 13, line 3, for' it," read ' in,' and omit tlie colon. 
 
 70, first line of the note, instead of ' our," read one.' 
 84, last Une, read the clause ' Ananias says of Christ,' thus, ' Ananias 
 says to Christ.' 
 Page 112, line lO, from the bottom, for ' Emanuel,'' read ' ImmanueV 
 118, line 16 from the top, for 'Sol Jarchi,' read 'Sal. Jarchi.' 
 (120, line 2 of the note, for ' R.Judah Morris,' read 'K.Judah Monis.' And 
 same note, for' Jamison,' read ' Jamieson.' 
 Page 181, line 9 of the note, for ' great,' read ' greater.' 
 
 198, line 11, for ' word Jehovah,' read 'name Jehovah.' 
 
THE 
 
 DOCTRIXE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 PRELIiflNARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 In the ensuing treatise, I profess to give no expla- 
 nation of the doctrine of the trinity. And for this 
 reason ; the question is not, How is God owe, in one 
 sense, and three^ in another ; but, Is he so? Every 
 one, who admits the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 must admit, that if they declare that the Father is 
 God, and that the Son is God, and that the Holy 
 Ghost is God, and that God is one ; it is his duty to 
 believe that this doctrine is true, though he cannot 
 tell how it is true. If the doctrine be supported by 
 this evidence it must stand; if destitute of it, it 
 must fall. The question then is, Has it this evi- 
 dence in its favour, or has it not? 
 
 All the objections against it, on the assumed 
 ground of its involving a contradiction, are irrelcr 
 vant, provided it be admitted that the Scriptures are 
 1 
 
2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 the word of God. Because if they declare it to be 
 true, the objection is and must be false. Or, if they 
 do not support it, the objection is needless ; for the 
 doctrine must then be given up. But first to assume 
 that it is a contradiction, and thence to infer that 
 the Scriptures do not support it, is not only unphilo- 
 sophical, but absurd. 
 
 I would ask the Unitarian, whether he would be 
 willing to receive the doctrine of a triad in the divine 
 essence, if that doctrine be acknowledged in the 
 Scriptures? If he would not, then the controversy is 
 at an end with us on that subject. But if he would 
 receive it, if found there, why need he wrangle about 
 its being irrational and a manifest contradiction^ and 
 the like. These things have nothing to do with the 
 subject. It is "^o the icord and to the testimony.^'' 
 that we appeal. If he proves that the doctrine is 
 not therein acknowledged, we will not require him 
 to go to the trouble of attempting to prove it absurd 
 and self-contradictory. 
 
 Professor Norton, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
 in his desultory observations on Professor Stuart's 
 Letters to Dr. Channing, speaks as follows : " In 
 order to complete [establish the doctrine of] the 
 trinity, you must proceed to prove, frst. The 
 Personality, and then the divinity, of the Holy 
 Spirit. This is the only way in which the doctrine 
 can be established. He who proves the doctrine 
 of the trinity from the Scriptures, must do it by 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. d 
 
 showing that there are three persons, the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are respectively 
 mentioned in the Scriptui'es, as each possessing di- 
 vine attributes. There is no other medium of proof. 
 There is no other way in which the doctrine can be 
 estabhshed." — Christian Discijjle, Vol. 1. p. 376. — 
 Of course then, in the estimation of this gentleman, 
 the doctrine is susceptible of proof . 
 
 The learned Professor will perceive, that, in the 
 ensuing treatise, I have strictly followed his advice 
 as above extracted. 
 
PART I. 
 
 RELATING TO THE PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Those among professed Christians who oppose 
 tlie doctrine of the trinity, deny, not only the deity 
 of the Holy Ghost, but his personaUty. Their lan- 
 guage is, " The doctrine of the personality of the 
 Holy Ghost has no foundation in Scripture, nor will 
 it stand the test of reason." I believe that «//, with- 
 out exception, who deny the doctrine of the trinity, 
 hold that the doctrine of the personality of the Holy 
 Ghost is a mere chimera. 
 
 However, not regarding the above sweeping as- 
 sertion as evidence, I shall, with all due deference 
 to its authors, proceed with an impartial discussion 
 of the following question: Do the Holy Scriptures 
 furnish any evidence in support of the hypothesis, 
 
b A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY- 
 
 that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person from the 
 Father and the Son ? 
 
 In discussing this question, we will; 1. Produce 
 the arguments in support of the hypothesis, that the 
 Holy Spirit is a person, distinct from the Father and 
 Son ; and, 2. The objections against it. 
 
 1 . To speak, is the property of a person. But 
 this the Scriptures declare that the Holy Ghost has 
 done : Acts x. 19, " While Peter thought on these 
 things, the Spirit said unto him, Behold three men 
 seek thee." Acts xiii. 2, " The Holy Ghost saidj 
 Separate me Barnabas and Saul,''"' &c. Acts viii. 
 29, " Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near.'''* 
 Heb. iii. 7, 8, " Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith^ 
 To-day, if ye will hear his voice," &c. 1 Tim. iv. 1, 
 " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,'''' &c. 
 
 2. To appoint rulers or overseers, is the property 
 of a person or being only. But this the Holy Ghost 
 has done : Acts xx. 28, " Take heed, therefore, unto 
 yourselves, and the flock over the which the Holy 
 Ghost hath made you overseers,'''' &c. 
 
 3. To commission and send forth ministers, is the 
 property of an intelligent being only. But this has 
 been done by the Holy Ghost : Acts xi. 12, " And 
 the Spirit hade me go with them, nothing doubting.'''' 
 Acts xiii. 2. 4, " The Holy Ghost said. Separate me 
 Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto 1 have 
 called them. — So they being sent forth by the Holy 
 Ghost:' &c. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 7 
 
 4. To approve or disapprove of a measure, is the 
 property of a person or being oniy. But this the 
 Holy Ghost hath done : Acts xv. 28, " For it seemed 
 good unto the Holy Ghosts and unto us,'''' &c. 
 
 5. To send forth ministers to preach the Gospel, 
 and to restrain the preaching thereof, is the property 
 of an intelligent being only. But this the word of 
 God declares that the Holy Ghost hath done : Acts 
 xiii. 4, 5, " So they being sent forth by the Holy 
 Ghost, preached the word of God in the synagogues 
 of the Jews." Acts xvi. 6, " And were forbidden 
 of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.'''' 
 
 Much additional evidence of the same kind as the 
 above can be adduced from the Scriptures ; but if 
 the above is not sufficient to establish the distinct 
 personality of the Holy Ghost, more of the same 
 kind will not suffice to do it. 
 
 But it is objected by those that deny the distinct 
 personality of the Holy Ghost, that the characters 
 here laid down to prove this doctrine are not suffi- 
 cient for that purpose ; because they are often used 
 in a metaphorical sense, when applied to those 
 things which no one supposes to be persons. And 
 therefore they may be so used when applied to the 
 Spirit. Thus the unicorn is spoken of in Job xxxix. 
 11,12; and of the horse, it is said as though he acted 
 with design, verse 21 ; and also the eagle, verse 28. 
 It is also said that the attributes of God are personi- 
 
8 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 fied ; and, as an instance, Wisdom, spoken of in 
 Proverbs viii., is adduced. 
 
 But in answer to this objection several things may 
 be said. 
 
 1. Though the Scriptures often use figurative, and 
 particularly metaphorical ways of speaking, yet 
 these may easily be distinguished from the like 
 phrases used elsewhere, and concerning which we 
 have sufficient evidence to conclude that they are to 
 be understood literally. Therefore, though it is true 
 there are personal characters given to things which 
 are not persons ; yet we are not to conclude from 
 thence, that whenever the same modes of speaking 
 are used, and applied to those capable of performing 
 personal actions, that therefore these, which are 
 known exceptions from the common idea contained 
 in the same words, must be taken in a metaphorical 
 
 2. Though the Scriptures contain many meta- 
 phors ; yet the most important truths arc laid down 
 in the plainest manner ; so that he who is ignorant 
 of rhetoric and criticism, may thereby be instructed. 
 At least, they are not universally wrapt up in such 
 figurative modes of speaking. 
 
 3. If personal characters are not metaphorical 
 when applied to men, who are subjects capable of 
 having personalities attributed to them ; why should 
 they be considered metaphorical, when applied to 
 the Spirit ? 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. « 
 
 4. The asserting that personal characters attri- 
 buted to the Spirit, are always to be understood in 
 a metaphorical sense, would give equal ground to 
 conclude, that they are to be so taken when applied 
 to the Father. 
 
 5. With regard to the personification of Wisdom, 
 mentioned in the objection, 1 will offer the following 
 observations. 
 
 1. The Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs viii., is not 
 an attribute, but a real person ; viz. the Lord Jesus 
 Christ.* But as this is controverted by the oppo- 
 nents of the doctrine under consideration, I will, for 
 the sake of the argument, proceed on the supposition, 
 that it is an attribute. 
 
 2. This personification of wisdom is exhibited in 
 animated and sublime poetry. In such poetry, and 
 in loftier strains of eloquence, we are to look, if any 
 where, for bold figurative language. The whole 
 tenor of this discourse proceeds from an enkindled 
 imagination, and ardent feelings. In this state of 
 mind, nature instinctively adopts figurative language, 
 and bold images; and readily imparts life, thought, 
 and action, to those objects, the contemplation of 
 which has excited this peculiar elevation. But on 
 ordinaiy occasions, which furnish nothing to .raise 
 the mind above its common cool level, such a mode 
 of writing is perfectly unnatural ; it is at war with 
 
 * On this subject, see Dvvight's Theolog)'. 
 
10 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the whole tenor of thought. Not an example of 
 this can be found in the Scriptures, unless it be tliis 
 which is now in debate. But who would look for 
 personifications in such cases as the following ? " The 
 Spirit said unto Peter ;" " The Spirit caught away 
 Pliilip ;" "It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and 
 unto us ;" " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly :" 
 together with a vast multitude of others exactly re- 
 sembling these in their nature. If personifications 
 are to be used in such cases, in what cases are they 
 not to be used ; and in what cases are we to use 
 simple language ? 
 
 If, as some affirm, the Holy Ghost be but an at- 
 tribute of the Father, or merely his breath, or spirit, 
 i. e. nothing distinct from him ; 1 must confess my- 
 self at a loss how to understand the following pas- 
 sages of Scripture, in which, if I understand the 
 import of language, they are represented as distinct. 
 1 John V. 7, " There are three that bear record in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; 
 and these three are one."* 2 Cor. xiii. 14, "The 
 grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, 
 and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you 
 all, Amen." Matt, xxviii. 19, " Baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 I have frequently heard it asserted, and have seen 
 
 • of the genuineness of this text, I shall remark liereafter. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 11 
 
 the same in many of the publications of those hostile 
 to the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Ghost, 
 that " the Holy Ghost or Spirit is nothing more than 
 the poiver of God." 
 
 If this be true, I would ask, how are we to under- 
 stand the following passages of Scripture in which 
 the word power shall be substituted for that of Ghost 
 or Spirit. Acts x. 38, " How God anointed Jesus of 
 Nazareth with the Holy power^ and with power." 
 Rom. XV. 1 3, " That ye may abound in hope through 
 the power of the Holy power.'''' Rom. xv. 19, 
 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power 
 of the poiver of God." There are many other pas- 
 sages in Scripture of the same kind.* — See 1 Cor. 
 ii. 4. John xvi. 13. and Matt. xii. 31. 
 
 * See Dwight's Theology, and Ridgley's Divinity. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 The Scriptures appear to me, distinctly to declare 
 the supreme divinity of the Holy Ghost. In order 
 to arrange systematically the evidences of his deity, 
 we will consider : 1 . His works. 2. His attributes. 
 3. His names and titles. And 4. His worship. 
 
 1. His deity may be established by his works. 
 
 1. Creation is ascribed to him. Gen. i. 2, is a proof 
 in point, wherein it appears that he was the Creator ; 
 for " the world was without form and void," until he 
 moved upon the face of the waters. It is said by 
 Unitarians that " the Spirit of God" here spoken of, 
 was nothing more than the air or wind : but that 
 cannot be ; as the wind or air was not created until 
 the third day. That he was the Creator, is likewise 
 clear from Job xxvi. 13, " By his Spirit he garnished 
 the heavens." And Job xxxiii. 4, " The Spirit of 
 God hath made me." 
 
 2. Extraordinary or miraculous works, which'are 
 equivalent to creation, have been performed by the 
 Spirit. Thus the apostle speaking of the extraordi- 
 nary gifts subservient to the propagation of the gos- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 13 
 
 pel in the first preaching thereof; attributes them to 
 the Spirit, when he says i|| 1 Cor. xii. 4—6, " Now 
 there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
 And there are diversities of administrations, but the 
 same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, 
 but it is the same God which worketh all in all." The 
 meaning of this text, doubtless, is, that there are di- 
 versities of gifts or extraordinary operations, which 
 the apostles were enabled to put forth in the exercise 
 of their ministry ; which were all from the same 
 Spirit ; who is Lord and God ; and who has an in- 
 finite sovereignty to bestow these blessings as he 
 pleases, and as becomes a divine person. And this 
 agrees with what is said inverse 10 : "But all these 
 worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing 
 to every man severally as he will." 
 
 3. The Holy Ghost commissioned and qualified 
 ministers to preach the gospel, and dictated to them 
 where they should, and should not, preach the word. 
 Now, a creature may as well pretend to stop the sun 
 in the firmament, at his pleasure, as to commission 
 a minister to preach the gospel, and restrain the 
 preaching thereof. Now the Holy Ghost is plainly 
 said to have called and appointed the apostles, after 
 he had conferred extraordinary gifts upon them, and 
 qualified them for it. And accordingly he speaks in 
 a style truly divine, in Acts xiii. 2 : " The Holy 
 Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
 
 work whereunto I have called them." And in Acts 
 2 
 
14 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 XX. 28, the apostle tells the elders, or ministers of 
 the church at Ephesus, ^at "the Holy Ghost hath 
 made them overseers." We read of the Spirit 
 determining where they should exercise their minis- 
 try. Thus, in Acts viii. 29, he commanded Philip 
 to go and preach the gospel to the eunuch. And at 
 another time, the Spirit bade Peter to go and preach 
 the gospel to Cornelius, Acts x. 17, 20. And at an- 
 other time it is said, " Now when they had gone 
 through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and 
 were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the 
 word in Asia. After they were come to ^Nlysia, they 
 essayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered 
 them not." Acts xvi. 6, 7. 
 
 II. His Deity may also be proved by his attri- 
 butes. 
 
 1. Eternity is ascribed to him. Heb. ix. 14. 
 " Christ, who through the eternal Spirit once offered 
 liimself to God." 
 
 2. Omnipresence. " Whither shall 1 go from thy 
 Spirit, or whither shall 1 flee from thy presence." 
 Ps. cxxxix. 7. " Your body is the temple of the 
 Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. That is, the bodies 
 of all Christians. 
 
 3. Holiness. " The Holy Ghost." " The Holy 
 Spirit." 
 
 4. Grace. " Hath done despite unto the Spirit of 
 grace." Heb. x. 29. 
 
 5. Truth. " The Comforter, the Spirit of truth." 
 John xiv. 16, 17. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 15 
 
 6. Glory. " The Spirit of glory and of God rest- 
 eth on you." 1 Pet. iv. 1,4. 
 
 7. Goodness. " Thy Spirit is good." Ps. cxliii. 
 10. " Thy good Spirit." Neh. ix. 20. 
 
 If the Holy Ghost be eternal, omniscient, and 
 omnipresent, he must without controversy, be God. 
 
 111. The names given the Holy Ghost in the 
 Scriptures, establish his Deity. 
 
 1 . He is called Lord. " Now the Lord is that 
 Spirit." 2 Cor. viii. 7. 
 
 2. He is directly called God. Acts v. 34. " And 
 Peter said, Ananias, why hath satan filled thy heart 
 to lie unto the Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not lied unto 
 men, but unto God." 
 
 Compare the following passages together. 2 Tim. 
 iii. 16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God :" 
 and 2 Pet. i. 2 1 . " The prophecy came not iii old 
 lime by the will of man, but holy men of God spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The Holy 
 Ghost therefore is God. 
 
 Acts iv. 24, 25. " They lifted up their voice with 
 one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which has 
 made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that 
 therein is ; who by the mouth of thy servant David, 
 hast said," &c. The terms Lord and God, are here 
 used to express the deity of him who spake by the 
 mouth of his servant David. But it was the Holy 
 Ghost who spake by the mouth of his servant Da- 
 vid ; for St. Peter says, " This scripture must needs 
 
16 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITY. 
 
 be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of 
 David spake," &c. Therefore the terms Lord and 
 God are used to express the godhead of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 3. He is styled the Lord God of Israel. 
 
 In Luke i. 68, 70, we read that " It was the 
 Lord ,God of Israel who spake by the mouth of his 
 holy prophets since the world began." But St. Pe- 
 ter says, the prophets " spake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. i. 2 1 . The Holy Ghost 
 is therefore the Lord God of Israel. 
 
 4. He is called Jehovah of hosts. In Isa. vi. 
 we read that the prophet had a vision of the Lord, 
 or Jehovah* of hosts. And that Jehovah sent him 
 to the people of Israel, to " make their ears dull of 
 hearing," &c. But St. Paul quotes this circum- 
 stance, and says, " Well spake the Holy Ghost by 
 Esaias the prophet," &c. Acts xxviii. 25, 2G. The 
 Holy Ghost, therefore, is Jehovah of hosts. 
 
 IV. His plenary divinity may also be proved by 
 his worship. 
 
 He was worshipped by inspired men. We have 
 an example in 2 Thess. iii. 5. " And the Lord direct 
 your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient 
 waiting for Christ." The Holy Ghost is here called 
 Lord, and prayed to ; and he is distinguished from 
 
 • It will be remembered that where the word Lonn, is, in the 
 Old Testament printed in capitals, it is a translation of Jehovah. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 17 
 
 the Father and the Son. For the apostle prays to 
 him, that he would duect them into the love of the 
 Father, and enable them to wait patiently for the Son. 
 
 Another instance is found in Acts iv. 24, 25. 
 " They lifted up their voice to God with one accord, 
 and said, Lord thou art God which hast made heaven, 
 and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is ; who 
 by the mouth of thy servant David hast said," &c. 
 It is the being who spake by the mouth of David, 
 who is here invocated, and called Lord, and God. 
 But this being was the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
 We have another instance in 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. 
 " And the Lord make you to increase, and abound 
 in love one toward another, and toward all men, 
 even as we do toward you : To the end, that he may 
 establish your hearts in holiness, before God, even 
 our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 The Holy Ghost is here plainly distinguished from 
 the Father and Son, and prayed to. And the prayer 
 is, that the Thessalonians might be holy before the 
 Father, at the coming of the Son.* 
 
 I have now proved that the Holy Ghost is a dis- 
 tinct person from the Father and Son. And that 
 the Scriptures ascribe to him the works of deity ; 
 such as creation, and works equivalent thereto ; and 
 also, that the Scriptures declare him to be possessed 
 of the same attributes, that they ascribe to the 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Ridgley's Divinity, Jones on the Trinity. 
 2 * 
 
18 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Father : such as eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, 
 &c. and the same names also ; he is called Lord, 
 God, Lord God of Israel, and Jehovah of hosts. And 
 finally, that the same kind of worship is paid to him 
 as is paid the Father. Upon such evidence alone, 
 can the supreme divinity of the Father be establish- 
 ed from revelation. If these things, therefore, are 
 not sufficient to establish the supreme divinity of 
 the Holy Ghost, they are insufficient to prove the 
 eternal power and Godhead of the Father ; but if 
 such evidence demonstrates the deity of the Father, 
 the eternal deity of the Holy Ghost, as we have the 
 same evidence for it, must follow as a matter of 
 course. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 Against the deity of the Holy Ghost, its oppo- 
 sers urge a number of objections, which I now pro- 
 ceed to consider. 
 
 As a proof that he is not God the following text 
 is urged, Matt. iii. 16, " The Spirit of God." He is, 
 say the opposers of his deity, not God, because this 
 passage declares him to be merely the Sjjirit of God, 
 In this objection, it is taken for granted, that God 
 has a spirit, in some such sense as man has ; and 
 the above passage is considered as a proof of this. 
 But we find rather too great an obstacle in the way 
 to admit of such an interpretation. For God is him- 
 self a Spirit, John iv. 24. " God is a Spirit," &c. and 
 the Scriptures assure us that though the Holy Ghost 
 is called " the Spirit of God," that, nevertheless, he 
 is God himself. For in Judges xv. 1 4. we read that 
 "the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Sampson." And 
 in ch. xvi. 20. it is said that "Jehovah departed 
 from him." That both passages refer to the coming 
 and going of the same person is clear. Because 
 
20 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 when the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Sampson, he 
 could with ease hberate himself from the Philistines; 
 but when Jehovah is said to have departed from 
 him, he was taken by them without difficulty. 
 
 But distinct from this consideration, the texts 
 already adduced to establish his deity sufficiently 
 prove this point. 
 
 Another objected passage is, Matt. xix. 17. 
 " There is none good but one, that is God." From 
 this passage it is argued that " the attribute good- 
 ness is confined to God the Father ;" who, therefore, 
 must be a being superior to the Holy Ghost. But 
 there is one essential error in this argument, for it is 
 not one person, but one God, that the Scriptures as- 
 sert to be good. And we have now an opportunity 
 of proving that in the unity of this one God, besides 
 whom no other is good, the person of the Holy 
 Ghost is, and must be included. 
 
 For it is written, Ps. cxliii. 10. "Thy Spirit is 
 good." So that if the same inspired scripture which 
 declares the Spirit to be good, plainly declares that 
 there is none good but God only, then the Spirit is 
 God, even the true God. 
 
 The following text is also adduced to prove his 
 inferiority to God. Rom. viii. 26. " The Spirit itself 
 makelh intercession f'^r us." From this it is argued 
 by the opponents of the deity of the Spirit, that he 
 is not God, because he makeih intercession with 
 God ; and God, say thry, cannot make intercession 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 21 
 
 with himself. But here they are taken in their own 
 craftiness. Because if the Spirit does intercede, it 
 must certainly be a being or person of some kind. 
 The assertion that God cannot intercede with him- 
 self is not correct ; for it was by intercession, that 
 he " reconciled the world to himself.'''' 
 
 They also produce many other texts, which say, 
 the Spirit was given, poured out, sent, proceeded 
 from, &c. ; and they argue, that it is impossible for 
 God to give, proceed from, and send himself. But 
 here the question is begged that God is one person, 
 in which case, it might be a contradiction. But the 
 Scriptures declare that in God there are three per- 
 sons ; and then there is no contradiction in any of 
 these things. It is also to be remembered that the 
 terms proceed from, sending, &c., are terms which 
 do not concern the divine nature, but relate merely 
 to the acts, and offices, which the several persons of 
 the blessed trinity have mercifully condescended to 
 take upon them, for the purpose of conducting the 
 present economy of man's redemption.* 
 
 • Jones on the Trinity. 
 
( 22 
 
 PART II 
 
 THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PLENARY DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST PROVED BY HIS 
 ACTIONS. 
 
 As we propose in this part of our work to esta- 
 blish the deity of Jesus Christ in opposition to the 
 views of Arians and Socinians, and all other Unita- 
 rians, it will be proper here, before we proceed to 
 the proof, to state the precise point in dispute, show 
 what it is, and what it is not. 
 
 This, indeed, has often been done by the advo- 
 cates of Trinitarianism. But for some reason, (which 
 1 believe can be accounted for, on no other principle 
 than that Unitarians do not desire to come fairly to 
 an issue with them,) their opponents apparently mis- 
 apprehend, and certainly egregiously misrepresent* 
 their views of the person of Christ. 
 
 * In reading some recent Unitarian publications, I could not 
 but be much surprised to find it roundly asserted therein, that 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 23 
 
 The point at issue, then, is not, whether Christ be 
 the Son of God. For in this we are agreed. Nei- 
 ther is it whether Christ be a man. For this we 
 Hkewise admit. But it is, whether Christ, the Son of 
 God, the second person of the trinity, be equal with 
 God tiie Father, who is the first ? Here we affirm ; 
 and they deny. And another point at issue is, 
 whether to the manhood of Christ, there was joined 
 a divine nature ? Or, in other words, whether Christ 
 be " God manifest in the flesh ?" Here, likewise, 
 we affirm, and they deny. 
 
 But strange as it may appear, when we attempt 
 to prove that Christ is true and perfect God, we 
 are met with a host of proofs that he is the Son of 
 God ; which is a point that neither is, nor can be 
 in dispute between us. And when we affirm that 
 he is God, as well as man, we are met with multi- 
 plied proofs of his humanity. Such conduct is un- 
 fair in the extreme, and can admit of no justifica- 
 tion. 
 
 But we proceed to prove that the peculiar actions 
 of God are ascribed to Christ in the Scriptures. 
 
 1. Creation. Heb. i. 10, quoted from Ps. cii. 25. 
 " Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the founda- 
 
 " Trinitarians hold Christ to be the Father," and "the Son to be 
 the Father of himself" &.c. What could have induced any indivi- 
 duals to act so ungenerously, and to go so far astray from truth, 
 as to assert such palpable falsehoods is difficult for me to deter- 
 mine. 
 
24 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 tion of the earth, and the heavens are the works of 
 thine hands." John i. 3. " By him were all things 
 made, and without him was not any thing made that 
 was made.""* Colos. i. 16. " For by him were all 
 things created that are in heaven, and that are in 
 earth, visible and invisible ; whether they be thrones, 
 or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things 
 were created by him and for him." The meaning 
 of these last two quotations is, that the universe, 
 and all created beings^ were created by Christ. But 
 Unitarians hold that Christ himself is a created 
 being. The conclusion, then, to which their doc- 
 trine leads, is, that Christ created himself. 
 
 It is however objected (to tlie argument in favour of 
 the deity of Christ, deduced from his being the crea- 
 tor of all things,) that he did not create these things, 
 or do them by his own power, but was merely an 
 instrument in the hands of God. The objectors 
 allow that the work of creation is ascribed to him ; 
 but they deny that this argues him to be God in the 
 same sense as the Father is. Because, say they, 
 the Father created all things by the Son : who was 
 
 • Unitarians assert that ynofjicti, from which iyl\l^'To, here ren- 
 dered "were made," has simply the force of were,- though in 
 their improved version, they have rendered it " All things were 
 dom by him," &c. If we should grant their assertion, it would 
 not assist them any; for the verse would still read thus, ♦' By liim 
 were all things, and without him was not any thing, that was." 
 Ver. 10, <* The world was (i-yinro) by him." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 25 
 
 an instrument created by him, for that purpose. So 
 that the Son was an inferior, or second cause of the 
 production of all tilings ; and that it cannot from 
 hence be concluded that he is God equal with the 
 Father.* 
 
 What is offered in opposition to this, is, 1 . That 
 in the account of creation, there is not a just differ- 
 ence put between the natural, and supernatural pro- 
 duction of things, of which the latter can only be 
 called creation. Therefore, if these two be con- 
 founded, the distinguished character of a creator is 
 set aside. And, consequenlly, the glory arising from 
 hence, cannot be appropriated to God. Nor is that 
 infinite perfection displaj^ed therein, duly considered. 
 But according to this scheme, or method of reason- 
 ing, a creature may be a creator, and a creator a 
 creature. Nor can the eternal power and Godhead 
 of the divine Being, be demonstrated by the things 
 that are made, or created, as the apostle in Rom. i. 
 20, says they are. 
 
 But, 2. From this first mistake there arises another, 
 viz.: that, because in natural productions, that which 
 was created by God may be rendered subservient to 
 
 * To Aristotle, the work of creation appeared too difficult a 
 work even for Deity to accomplish. How different in this respect, 
 were the views of this prince of philosopers, from those of the 
 opposers of the deity of Christ. They assert that it is so easy a 
 luork as to afford no evidence of the Deity of its author : that a 
 creature could and did accomplish it. 
 3 
 
26 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the production of other things ; in which respect it 
 may be termed an instrument made use of by the 
 superior cause, and may have an energy or method 
 of acting peculiar to itself; whereby it produces 
 effects according to the course and laws of nature 
 fixed by God, the first cause of all things; therefore 
 they suppose, though without sufficient ground, that 
 God might create all things by an instrument, or 
 second cause thereof, as they concluded he did by 
 the Son. 
 
 3. Notwithstanding we must assert that creation 
 being a supernatural production of things, what has 
 been said concerning natural productions is not ap- 
 plicable to it. Therefore, 
 
 4. Though things be produced in a natural way 
 by second causes, whose powers are limited and 
 subjected to the laws of nature, as aforesaid, yet 
 supernatural effects cannot be produced by any 
 thing short of infinite power. Therefore, since crea- 
 tion is a supernatural work, it must be concluded to 
 be a work of infinite pov^'er. 
 
 5. It follows from hence that it is not agreeable 
 to the idea of creation, or the producing all things 
 out of nothing, for God to make use of an instru- 
 ment. That this may appear, let it be considered 
 that, whatever instrument is made use of, it must be 
 either finite or infinite. An infinite instrument can- 
 not be made use of, for then there would be two in- 
 finities, the one superior and the other inferior. Nor 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 27 
 
 can a finite one be made use of, for thai, according 
 to our last proposition, cannot produce any super- 
 natural effect, as creation is allowed to be, which 
 requires infinite power, and that cannot be exerted 
 by a finite medium ; therefore no such instrument 
 can be used. Moreover, if it requires infinite power 
 to create all things, this power in its method of act- 
 ing would be limited by the instrument made use of; 
 for whatever power a superior cause has in himself, 
 the effect produced by an instrument will be pro- 
 portionate thereof. This some illustrate by a giant 
 making use of a reed, or a straw, in striking a blow, 
 in which the weakness of the instrument renders 
 the power of the person who uses it insignificant. 
 Thus, if God the Father should make use of the Son 
 in the creation of all things, the power that is exert- 
 ed therein can be no other than finite ; but this is not 
 sufficient for the production of things supernatural, 
 which require infinite power. To this we may add, 
 
 6. That the creation of all things is ascribed to 
 the sovereignty of the divine will ; accordingly, the 
 Psalmist describing it in Psalm xxxix. 9, says, " He 
 spake, and it was done. He commanded, and it 
 stood fast." So when God, in Gen. i. 3, said, " Let 
 there be light, and there was light," and when we 
 read of otlier parts of the creation, as produced by 
 his almighty word, it implies that they were pro- 
 duced by an act of his will. Now it seems impos- 
 sible, in the nature of things, that an instrument 
 
28 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 should be made use of in an act of willing, any more 
 than in an act of understanding. 
 
 7. No cause can reasonably be assigned, why 
 God should make use of an instrument in the pro- 
 duction of all things ; for certainly he, who by his 
 immediate power produced the instrument might, 
 without any difficulty or absurdity attending the 
 supposition, have created all things without one. 
 And we must further suppose that if there were 
 nothing in the nature of things which required him 
 to make use of an instrument, he would not by 
 making use of one, to wit, the Son, administer oc- 
 casion to him to assume so great a branch of his 
 own glory, viz. that of being the creator of the ends 
 of the earth; or of his being, as the result thereof, 
 worshipped as a divine person, supposing him to 
 have a right to divine worship for no other reason. 
 
 But finally, That Christ was not a mere instru- 
 ment in the work of creation, is evident, from this 
 fact, that the Scriptures not only teach that Christ 
 was the supreme God himself that created all things, 
 Psalm cii. 25, which is expressly applied to him by 
 the apostle, Heb. i. 10, but they also teach that no 
 instrument was used in the work : it was wrought 
 immediately by God himself, as it is written, " God 
 himself formed the earth and made it," Jsaiah xlv. 
 18. (this all grant was the supreme God, and that 
 God was Jesus Christ.) He also spread out the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 29 
 
 heavens, not by an instrument, but by himself alone, 
 Isaiah xliv. 24, with his own hands, Isaiah xlv. 1 2. 
 
 The two following texts are produced as proofs 
 that Christ was an instrument in creation, viz. Heb. 
 i. 2, Eph. iii. 9. 
 
 But the difficulty in the former of these passages, 
 upon which great stress is laid by our opponents, is 
 to explain the phrase " by whom, SI ou, he (the 
 Father) made the worlds;"* the apostle has added 
 sufficient, in verses 10-12, as it might seem, to pre- 
 vent mistake here. If, however, the difficulty seems 
 to press, it may be compared with Hos. i. 7, " I 
 (Jehovah) will have mercy upon the house of Judah, 
 and will save them bij Jehovah.'''' Is the second Je- 
 hovah merely the instrumental cause, in this case ? 
 Of the same nature is the phraseology in Gen. xix. 
 24 ; "And Jehovah rained down upon Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, fire and brimstone, from Jehovah, out 
 of heaven." Must the last Jehovah^ in this case be a 
 being inferior to ihejirst ? If not, then the phrase 
 that God made the worlds hy his Son, does not im- 
 ply, of course, that the- Son is of an inferior nature. 
 It does imply that there is a distinction between the 
 Father and Son ; and this is what we aver to be a 
 scripture doctrine. It seems to declare, also, that 
 
 * That doctrine which teaches that a created being was the 
 creator of all things, is certainly as inexplicable and mysterious 
 as the doctrine of the trmity. 
 
30 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the Godhead, in respect to the distinction of Son, was 
 in a special manner concerned with the creation of the 
 worlds. \Miat is there impossible, or improbable in 
 this 1 
 
 The latter text some think it needless to give the 
 sense of, since the words " by Jesus Christ," are 
 wanting in some ancient copies of the Scriptures, as 
 well as in the vulgar Latin and the Syriac versions ; 
 they are likewise omitted by Griesbach,* in his im- 
 proved version. Yet since there are some copies 
 that have this clause, we will suppose it to be ge- 
 nuine ; and that we may account for the sense of it, 
 we may observe that the apostle makes use of the 
 word create, three times in this epistle. We find it 
 in chapter ii. 10. and iv. 24.; in both of which places 
 it is taken for the new creation, which is brought 
 about by Ciirist, as mediator, and without doubt it 
 should be so taken in this verse wliich we are now 
 considering. And, therefore, this is a part of that 
 mystery, of which the aposde speaks in the foregoing 
 
 * The Arians profess gi-catly to admire Professor Griesbach ; 
 and in some very difTicult passag'es wliich seem to them to favour 
 our doctrine, they find it very convenient to appeal to his autho- 
 rity ; and they then dilate upon the propriety of adopting his ver- 
 sion of the New Testament as the most correct. But when they 
 adduce Eph. iii. 9. to prove that Christ was merely an instrument 
 in the work of creation, they uniformly appear to forget, that the 
 Professor has, in his version, omitted the clause cT/* ixa-cv Xgt<rrou, 
 " by Jesus Clu-ist." In the English improved version it is like- 
 wise omitted. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 31 
 
 words, that was hid in God. And this sense seems 
 not to be excluded by those who suppose, that in 
 some respects, it has some reference to the first crea- 
 tion of all things. 
 
 But it is granted by the Arians, that Christ is the 
 creator of all things. Now the power of creating, 
 or giving existence, is evidently a subject, to which 
 limits can no more be assigned, in our thoughts, than 
 to duration or space. He who gave existence to 
 one atom, can, without doubt, give existence to 
 atoms, and therefore to worlds without number ; and 
 the power who can thus create must be infinite. 
 
 2. We plainly cannot see that creative power is 
 not infinite, nor can a single argument be produced 
 to support such a conclusion. The doctrine is there- 
 fore a mere gratuitous assumption, and merits as 
 little consideration as any other such assuniption. 
 
 3. Creating power is the source of all power that 
 exists, except itself If therefore creating power is 
 not infinite, there is no infinite power. Christ there- 
 fore as the creator of all things, possesses originally 
 all existing power, whether we allow it to be in- 
 finite or not. 
 
 4. If creation and preservation be not a proof of 
 infinite power, there is no proof that such power 
 exists. Of this there needs no illustration but one, 
 viz. That these are the only sources from whence 
 infinite povs'er has been hitherto argued in the pre- 
 sent world. 
 
32 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 5. The Scriptures have determined this point in- 
 controvertibly ; for in Heb. iii. 4, they say, " every 
 house is builded by some one, but he that built all 
 things is God." 
 
 But we proceed with the additional proof that the 
 actions of God are ascribed to Christ in the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 2. In addition to creation, the preservation of all 
 things is ascribed to him. "By him," says the 
 apostle Paul, "do all things consist," Colos. i. 17. 
 Heb. i. 1-3, " God who at sundry times and in di- 
 vers manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets, 
 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, 
 whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom 
 also he made the worlds : who being the brightness 
 of his glory, and the express image of his person, and 
 upholding all things by the word of his power, when 
 he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the 
 right hand of the majesty on high." These passages 
 require no comment — suffice it to say, that if what 
 is here said, is not sufficient to prove that the preser- 
 vation of all things is ascribed to Christ, no language 
 can be made sufficiently plain to express it. 
 
 3. The government of ail things is likewise ascrib- 
 ed to him. Psalm xlv. 6, " Thy throne, O God, is 
 for ever and ever." Isaiah ix. 6, 7, " Unto us a child 
 is born, unto us a son is given, and the government 
 shall be upon his shoulder, his name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the ever- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 33 
 
 lasting Father, the Prince of peace. Of the increase 
 of his government and peace tliere shall be no end." 
 Daniel vii. 14, "His (the son of man's,) dominion is 
 an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, 
 and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." 
 Acts X. 13, "He (Jesus Christ) is Lord of all." 
 Rom. ix. 5, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever." 
 
 4. The act of giving and restoring life is also ex- 
 pressly ascribed to Christ, in a variety of ways ; par- 
 ticularly while he resided in this world he raised the 
 dead at his pleasure. The daughter of Jairus, the 
 son of the widow of Nain, and his beloved Lazarus, 
 were illustrious examples. All these returned again 
 from the world of departed spirits at his command. 
 " Damsel, 1 say unto thee arise" — " Young man, 
 I say unto thee arise" — " Lazarus come forth," 
 were the only means he employed, and the spirits of 
 these deceased persons instantly obeyed his call. 
 This amazing power he accordingly asserts of him- 
 self in terms absolute and universal ; " As the Fa- 
 ther raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even 
 so the Son quickeneth whom he will." John v. 22. 
 
 But in a more striking manner did he exemplify 
 this wonderful power in raising himself from the 
 dead. That he did this cannot be doubted, unless 
 we doubt the truth of his own express declaration, 
 John x. 1 7, 1 8. 
 
 Another most wonderful exhibition of this asto- 
 
34 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 nishing power will be made by him, as he himself 
 has told us, in raising up the dead at the last day. 
 " And this is the will of him that sent me, that every 
 one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may 
 have everlasting life : and ] will raise him up at the 
 last day." John vi. 40 ; and again, verse 56 ; see 
 also verses 39 and 44, and John v. 28. After Christ 
 had ascended to heaven, the apostles, according to 
 his promise, raised the dead by his power and autho- 
 rity ; and thus proved the ubiquity of his power, aS 
 well as of his presence. 
 
 5. The forgiveness of sin is also ascribed to 
 Christ, Colos. iii. 1 3. " Forbearing one another, and 
 forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel 
 against any, even as Christ forgave you." Acts vii. 
 59,60, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon 
 God (or invocating),and saying. Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a 
 loud voice. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." 
 In this afitecting passage, Stephen, full of the Holy 
 Ghost, and vouchsafed a vision of the glory of God, 
 prays to Christ to forgive the sins of his murderers. 
 Matt. ix. 2 — 7, " And behold they brought to him 
 a man sick oft he palsy, lying on a bed : and Jesus 
 seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy. Son, 
 be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. And 
 behold certain of the scribes said within themselves, 
 this man blasphemeth. And Jesus, knowing their 
 thoughts, said unto them, wherefore think ye evil in 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 35 
 
 your hearts ? for whether is easier to say thy sins 
 be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk? But that 
 ye may know the Son of man hath power on earth 
 to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 
 arise take up thy bed and go unto thine house ; and 
 he arose and departed unto his house." In this pas- 
 sage, Christ said to the sick of the palsy, " Son, thy 
 sins be forgiven thee." Some of the scribes, who 
 were present, accused him in their hearts of blas- 
 phemy, and said, as Mark informs us. Who can 
 forgive sins but God only? In this also, they spake 
 the truth ; Christ knew their thoughts, and asked 
 them, " Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts, for 
 whether is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or 
 to say, arise and walk ?" Both of these acts belong 
 to God alone. The latter is here with supreme force 
 proposed as a test of the former. Christ, therefore, 
 makes it such, and tells the scribes that he will 
 prove to them his power to forgive sins, by his power 
 to raise up the sick of the palsy with a command. 
 
 Accordingly, as a proof in form that he possessed 
 this power, he says to the sick of the palsy, " Arise, 
 and walk." The sick man immediately arose and 
 departed to his house. Here the power of Christ to 
 forgive sins was denied by the scribes, and express- 
 ly asserted by himself Of this assertion, he under- 
 took the proof on the spot, and the proof proposed 
 was a miracle. A miracle can be wrought by none 
 but God ; and God cannot work a miracle to prove 
 
36 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 a falsehood ; the miracle was wrought — the assertion 
 therefore was true. 
 
 6. The act of giving life is abundantly ascribed 
 to Christ in the Scriptures. John x. 27, 28, " My 
 sheep hear my voice, and 1 know them : and they 
 follow me ; and I give unto them eternal life and 
 they shall never perish." Rev. xxi. 6, " I am Al- 
 pha and Omega, the beginning and the end ; 1 will 
 give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the 
 water of life freely." Rev. iii. 5, " He that over- 
 cometh, the same shall be clothed in white, and 1 
 will not blot his name out of the book of life." See 
 also verses 12 and 21. 
 
 7. To Christ is ascribed the great and awful act 
 of judging the world. John v. 22, "The Father 
 judgeth no man, but hath connnitted all judgment 
 unto the Son." See also AJatt. xxv. 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9. All these are confessedly the 
 acts of the infinite God alone, and involve the abso- 
 lute possession of power and perfection without 
 bounds. To create, preserve, and govern the uni- 
 verse, to give, and restore life ; to forgive sin ; to 
 bestow eternal life; to judge the world of men and 
 angels ; and acquit or condemn finally and forever, 
 all intelligent beings ; is, if any thing is, to be and to 
 act as being the true God, the only infinite and eter- 
 nal Jehovah. 
 
 The following objections are urged against these 
 arguments. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 37 
 
 1. It is objected that his kingdom, and power of 
 acting in the administration of tlie affairs relating 
 thereunto, is wholly derived from the Father. Thus 
 he says, in Luke xxii. 29, "I appoint unto you a 
 kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;" 
 and in Matt. xi. 27, " All things are delivered unto 
 me of my Father ;" and in Psalm ii. 6, " Yet have 1 
 set my King upon my holy hill of Zion." And what- 
 ever he does in managing the affairs thereof, is by 
 the Father's commission and appointment. Thus in 
 John V. 36, he speaks of the works which he was to 
 perform as those which the Father had given him to 
 finish, and as for his power of executing judgment, 
 which is one of the greatest glories of his kingly 
 government, this is derived from the Father, in 
 John V. 22, "For the Father judgeth no man, but 
 hath committed all judgment unto the Son." And 
 in Acts xvii. 1 3, it is said, " that he hath appointed 
 a day in which he will judge the world in righteous- 
 ness, by that man whom he hath ordained," mean- 
 ing our Saviour. And when he speaks, in Rev. ii. 
 27, of " ruling his enemies with a rod of iron, and 
 breaking them to shivers, as the vessel of a potter," 
 he adds, that this he received from the Father ; from 
 whence it is argued, that since he received his 
 dominion or right to govern the world and the 
 church from the Father, therefore he cannot be God 
 equal with the Father. They insist that a derived 
 dominion cannot be made use of, as a medium to 
 
38 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 prove him that has it to be a divine person, in the 
 same sense in which we maintain him to be. 
 
 2. In all his works, and particularly in the ad- 
 ministration of his kingdom, he acts for the Father's 
 glory, and not for his own. Whereas, a divine per- 
 son cannot act for any other than for his own glory. 
 This, therefore, rather disproves, than evinces his 
 proper deity ; as, when he says, (John viii. 30,) " I 
 know my Father ;" and in chap. v. 30, " 1 seek not 
 mine own will, but the will of my Father which hath 
 sent me." He also speaks of the Father giving him 
 a commandment to do what he did, as in John 
 xii. 49, " I have not spoken of myself, but the 
 Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, 
 what I should say, and what 1 should speak :" and 
 in chap. xiv. 31, "As the Father gave me com- 
 mandment, so do I ;" and in chap. xv. 10, he speaks 
 of his having kept his Father's commandment, and 
 pursuant hereunto abiding in his love -, from whence 
 it is argued, that he, who is obliged to fulfil a com- 
 mandment or who acts in obedience to the Father, 
 is professedly a servant, or a subject, and therefore 
 cannot be God in the same sense as the Father is, 
 who gave this commandment. 
 
 3. It is likewise added, that in the government 
 of his church and the world, in subserviency there- 
 unto, he acts in the Father's name as deputy and 
 vicegerent : as in John x. 25, " The works that I 
 do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me ;" 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 39 
 
 and, accordingly, his works are called the Father's, 
 in verse 37, " If 1 do not the works of my Father, 
 believe ine not ;" and these works are said to be 
 done from the Father, verse 32, " Many good works 
 have 1 showed you from my Father ;" and as the 
 consequence of all this, he acknowledges, as he ought 
 to do, in John xiv. 28, " that the Father is greater 
 than he." How, then, can he be a divine person in 
 the sense in which we have proved him to be, when 
 there is a God above him, in whose name he acts in 
 all he does ? 
 
 4. It is further argued, that he was made both 
 Lord and Christ, and that by the Father, as it is 
 expressly said in Acts ii. 36. 
 
 Answer. The sum of what has been objected as 
 thus branched out in several particulars, is this : 
 Since Christ is represented as below the Father, or 
 inferior to him, he cannot be equal with him, for that 
 is no other than a contradiction. But it may be 
 replied to all this, that though the Scripture speaks 
 of our Saviour as receiving a commission from the 
 Father, and acting in subserviency to him, yet, let 
 it be considered that this does not respect the infe- 
 riority of the divine nature, but the subserviency of 
 what is done by him as mediator, to the glory of the 
 Father ; as this character and office were received 
 from him. And, indeed, whenever the Son is repre- 
 sented as engaged in the great work of redemption, 
 or in any work consequent thereupon, whereby 
 
40 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 
 
 what was before purchased is said to be apphed 
 by him ; this has a pecuUar reference to him as me- 
 diator. Therefore, let us consider, 
 
 1. That nothing is more common in Scripture, 
 than for him to be represented as mediator, espe- 
 cially in all those things which concern the spiritual 
 advantages, or salvation of his church, which is a 
 principal thing to be considered in his government ; 
 and in this sense we are to understand tliose Scrip- 
 tures which have been brought to support the objec- 
 tion ; and it is plain that our Saviour generally 
 speaks of himself under this character, which is in- 
 cluded in his being the Messiah, or Christ, which is 
 the main thing that he designed to evince by his doc- 
 trine, and his miracles. Therefore, if we duly con- 
 sider the import of this character, it will not only 
 give light to the understanding such like Scriptures, 
 but sufficiently answer the objection against his 
 deity taken from them. It is not denied by Unita- 
 rians that Christ is represented as a mediator ; but 
 they widely differ from us, when they take occasion 
 to explain what they intend thereby. Sometimes 
 they seem to mean nothing more by it, than a mid- 
 dle being betwixt God and the creature, and there- 
 fore the work performed by him as such, is not what 
 requires him to be in the most proper sense a divine 
 person,* and consequently, whatever inferiority to 
 
 • The consequences which result from a denial of the supreme 
 divinity of Jesus Christ, are totally disregarded by some, and not 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 41 
 
 the Father is contained in this character, they con- 
 clude that this respects his deity ; whereas, we dis- 
 
 duly considered by others. Many who deny the proper deity of 
 Jesus little suppose that the necessary consequence of this is a 
 denial of the atonement: yet it is what no candid reflecting mind 
 can deny. No person who denies the plenary divinity of Christ 
 can, with consistency, beUeve that he is an atonement for sin — 
 that he is the Saviour of the world. 
 
 For if Christ be not God, in the strictest sense of the word, how 
 is it possible for liim to become a propitiation for the sins of man. 
 kind? If he be a creature, however exalted, how is it possible that 
 he should be able to perform any act which would not be abso- 
 lutely necesary for his own justification before God? The law, by 
 which every creature is governed, requ.-^^ i ' jm to love God with 
 all his heart, soul, strength, and understanding ; or, in other 
 words, to consecrate all his powers, supremely and absolutely, so 
 long as he lives, to the service of God. More than this, he can- 
 not do ; and if all this be not done, he is a sinner, and cannot be 
 justified. How, then, can it be possible for him to perform any 
 thing which can be accepted for another, which is certainly due 
 for one's self? It is impossible that the debt due from another 
 should be cancelled by my payment of money due for a debt of 
 my own. AVhen I have paid my own debts, if I can offer more 
 money, I may then satisfy the creditor for the debt of another. 
 The obedience which the law requu-es of me as my obedience, will 
 satisfy the demands of the law on me, and prove the means of my 
 justification, but cannot be transferred from me to another sub- 
 ject to the same law. The law demands all liis obedience of him, 
 and all mine of me; but mine only being rendered, the demands of 
 the law are not, and cannot be satisfied. 
 
 Supererogatory service, or service not required by the law, is 
 absolutely essential to the very existence of vicarious interference. 
 But no creature can possibly perform supererogatory service; 
 4* 
 
42 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 tinguish between the subserviency of the work per- 
 formed by him as meditator, to the glory of God the 
 
 because, all that he can do is required of Iiim by the law. Thus 
 "exceeding broad," m the Scripture language, " is the command- 
 ment;" and tlius it is impossible that any creature should become, 
 in any sense, a propitiation for the sins of mankind.* 
 
 Then, if Jesus Christ be not God in the strictest sense of the 
 word, the world is destitute of a Saviour; we are yet in our sins, 
 violaters of the law of God, and obnoxious to liis wrath. Let 
 every one, then, who is disposed to deny the supreme divinity of 
 Jesus, think well upon this subject; and remember, tliat if Jesus 
 Christ be God, and his deity is denied, those who deny it are lost 
 without remedy: For his name is the " only name g-iven under 
 heaven among men, „. .<cby we must be saved." 
 
 Here is firm footing, here is solid rock; 
 Tliis can support us; all is sea besides. 
 Sinks under us, bestorms, and tlien devours. 
 
 Young. 
 
 The following is extracted from Dr. Young's account of the 
 mournful death of the gay, young, noble, and accompUshed Alta- 
 mont: 
 
 " The sad evening before the death of the noble youth, I was 
 with him. No one was there but his physician and an intimate 
 friend whom he loved, and whom he had ruined. At my coming 
 in, he said, ' You and the physician are come too late. I have 
 neither life nor hope. You both aim at miracles. You would raise 
 the dead.' Heaven, I said, was merciful. 'Or I could not have 
 been thus guilty. What has it not done to bless, and to save me? 
 I have been too strong for Omnipotence! I plucked down ruin!" 
 I said, the blessed Redeemer — 'Hold! hold! you wound me! — 
 That is tue rock on which I split — I denied ais kame!' " 
 
 * Dwight'sTheoIogry. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 43 
 
 Father, together with the subjection or real infe- 
 riority of the human nature, in which he performed 
 it to the Father ; and the inferiority of his divine 
 nature. The former we allow, the latter we deny. 
 
 2. When we speak of him as mediator, we al- 
 ways suppose him to be God and man in one per- 
 son ; and that these two natures, though infinitely 
 distinct, are not to be separated. As God, without 
 the consideration of a human nature united to his 
 divine person, he would be too high to sustain the 
 character, or to perform the work of a servant : and 
 as such, to yield obedience, which was mcumbent 
 on him as mediator : And, on the other hand, to be 
 a mere man, is too low, and would be altogether 
 inconsistent with the infinite value and dignity that 
 was to be put on the work which he was to perform. 
 It was necessary that he should have two distinct 
 natures — a divine and a human ; or, that he should be 
 God incarnate. The evangelist John, in whose 
 gospel our Saviour is often described as inferior to 
 the Fadier, as well as equal with him, which is 
 agreeable to his mediatorial character, lays down 
 this as a kind of preface, designing hereby to lead us 
 into the knowledge of such like expressions, when 
 he says, "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
 among us." 
 
 3. It follows from hence, that several things may 
 be spoken concerning, or applied to him, which are 
 infinitely opposite one another, viz. that he has al- 
 
44 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 mighty power in one respect, as to what concerns 
 his deity, and yet that he is weak, finite, and de- 
 pendant in another, as to what respects his humani- 
 ty. In one nature he is God equal with the Father, 
 and so receives nothing from him, is not dependant 
 on him, nor under any obhgation to yield obedience. 
 In this nature, he is the object of worship, as all wor- 
 ship terminates on that deity which is common to 
 all the persons of the Godhead : but in the other na- 
 ture he worships, receives all from, and refers all to 
 the glory of the Father. Therefore, 
 
 4. Those scriptures which speak of him as receiv- 
 ing a kingdom, doing all things from, or in, obe- 
 dience to the Father, or in his name, and for his 
 glory, and as inferior to, and dependant on him, are 
 not only applied to him as mediator, but what can 
 be inferred from such jnodes of speaking as thoso 
 above mentioned, as so many objections against the 
 doctrine which we are defending, is, that he who is 
 God, is also man ; and consequently, has those 
 things predicated of him as such, as are proper to a 
 nature infinitely below, though inseparably united 
 with his divine. 
 
 Moreover, when it is said that " the Father hath 
 committed all judgment to the Son," or, " that he 
 judgeth the world in righteousness by that man 
 whom he hath ordained ;" all that can be inferred 
 from hence is, that so far as this work is performed 
 by him in his human nature, which will be rendered 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 45 
 
 visible to the whole world at the day of judgment, 
 it is an instance of the highest favour and glory con- 
 ferred upon this nature, or upon God-man mediator, 
 as man : But, whereas he is elsewhere described as 
 having those infinite perfections, whereby he is fit to 
 do it, these are the same as belong to the Father, 
 and therefore not derived from him. 
 
 Again, when in another scripture, before referred 
 to, it is said, that God hath made him both Lord and 
 Christ, it is not there said that the Father hath made 
 him God, or given him any branch of the divine 
 glory ; but it signifies the unction that he received 
 from the Father, to be the King, Head, and Lord 
 of his church ; which, so far as this, is an act of grace, 
 or denotes his dependence on the Father ; therein 
 it hath an immediate respect to him in his human 
 nature, in which, as well as in his divine nature, this 
 dominion is exercised. Whereas his sovereignty and 
 universal dominion over the church, or divine per- 
 fections, which render him in all respects fit to go- 
 vern it, they belong more especially to the mediator 
 as God, and are the same as when they are applied 
 to the Father. 
 
 Moreover, when he says, " 1 seek not my own 
 will, but the Father's that sent me," and elsewhere, 
 "not my will but thine be done," it argues that he 
 had a human will, distinct from his divine, in which 
 he expreses that subjection to the Father, which 
 becomes a creature ; this plainly referred to him as 
 
46 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 
 
 man. So on the other hand he says, speaking of 
 himself co-ordinately with the Father, "As the 
 Father raiseth up (he dead and quickeneth them, so 
 even the Son quickeneth whom he will." This, 
 though spoken of him as mediator, has a peculiar 
 reference to his divine nature. 
 
 Again, when he says, " the Father is greater than 
 I," that is applied to him as man. Whereas else- 
 where in John x. 30, when he says, " 1 and my Fa- 
 the are one," this is spoken of him as God, having 
 the same nature with the Father. So that if we 
 suppose our Saviour to be God and man, as he is 
 plainly proved to be from Scripture, then it follows, 
 that whatever is said concerning him as importing 
 his right to divine honours on the one hand, or his 
 disclaiming it on the other, these are both true when 
 we consider him in these different natures. 
 
 Thus we are to understand those scriptures that 
 speak of the real inferiority of the Son to the Father ; 
 but when in other places nothing is intended but the 
 subserviency of what is done by the Son as mediator, 
 or its tendency to set forth the Father's glory, this 
 may be applicable to those divine works w hich the 
 mediator performs, and so we may distinguish be- 
 tween the subserviency of the divine actions to the 
 Father's glory and the inferiority of one divine per- 
 son to another. The former may be asserted with- 
 out detracting from his proper deity, the latter is 
 denied as inconsistent with it. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 47 
 
 As the following text is a great favourite with 
 Unitarians, to apologize for so particularly attending 
 to it here would be needless. 1 Cor. xv. 24 and 28, 
 " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered 
 up the kingdom to God even the Father, — and when 
 all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
 Son also himself be subject unto him that hath put 
 all things under him, that God may be all in all." 
 This text* is considered as a full proof of his infe- 
 riority to the Father. 
 
 • Unitarians are very fond of urging this passage against Trini- 
 tarians, but have they no difficulty in explaining it agreeably to 
 their doctrine? They believe that Christ is a mere creature, and 
 now actually in subjection to the Father. But the apostle declares 
 that "when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to God even 
 the Father," M shall then become subject to the Father. Surely if 
 the time is yet to come when the Son will become subject to the 
 Father, it of course follows that he is not so now ; or if he now 
 is, always has been, and ever will be, in subjection to the Father, 
 which they believe to be the fact, how, I would ask, can the time 
 ever arrive when he will become so? 
 
 It is on the above passage that Professor Norton (in his observa- 
 tions on Professor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing, Christian Dis- 
 ciple, vol. l.p. 386) remarks as follows: "We do not think that any 
 words can more clearly discriminate Christ from God, and declare 
 his dependence and inferiority ; and of necessity, his infinite in- 
 feriority." This inference, the learned Professor deduces from 
 these premises ; " When he shall have delivered up the king- 
 dom to God, even the Father, then shall the Son also himself 
 be subject to him," &c. 
 
 The Professor's argument, drawn out into a syllogism, would 
 
48 A PLEA FOR THE TRI^iTY. 
 
 But to comprehend the apostle's meaning in this 
 passage, it is necessary to remember, that Christ as 
 sustaining the office of mediator received from the 
 Father a kingdom according to the Scriptures, and 
 that when his mediatorial office ceases, because the 
 purposes of it are accomplished, this kingdom, as we 
 would naturally expect, is exhibited in the Scrip- 
 tures as ceasing also, there being no end for which 
 it should be any longer retained. Christ will there- 
 fore deliver it up to the Father when, at the con- 
 summation of all things, he presents to him the church 
 as a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, or any 
 such thing, and makes his final triumphant entry 
 into the heavens. But with regard to the latter 
 article here objected, that the Son shall then be sub- 
 ject to the Father, it is evident that the act of ren- 
 dering up the kingdom which he had received, is an 
 act of subjection, nor does the passage demand any 
 other interpretation.* 
 
 stand thus : — At some future time Christ will become subject to the 
 Father. But a bcmg' that will become, at some futui-e time, sub- 
 ject to another, is subject to him now ; tlierefore Christ is now 
 subject to tlie Father. Or thus, 
 
 Christ now is, and ever ivill be subject to the Father. But the 
 time is coming when he shall become subject to him. Therefore, 
 " no words can more clearly" prove that he is now subject to 
 him. 
 
 This is certainly mysterious. 
 
 • The Scriptures assure us that Jesus Christ took upon him the 
 form of a servant, which is a most glorious proof of his supreme 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 49 
 
 However, that these declarations do not intend 
 what the objectors allege we certainly know, " For 
 unto the Son, (the Father saith) thy throne, O God, 
 is for ever and ever." Heb. i. 8. " His dominion (says 
 Daniel) is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom 
 that which shall not be destroyed." " He shall reign 
 (said Gabriel to Mary) over the house of Jacob for 
 ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." To 
 God and the Lamb, are equally addressed those 
 sublime ascriptions of praise, which constitute the 
 peculiar and everlasting worship of saints and angels. 
 In this superior sense, therefore, the kingdom of 
 Christ will literally endure for ever. 
 
 And let it be remembered, also, that the same 
 apostle, who here says the Father put all things 
 under Christ, informs us in this same paragraph, 
 that Christ himself put all things under his feet. And 
 elsewhere, that Christ is able to subdue all things 
 unto himself, and that " he is head over all things." 
 Phil. i. and Eph. i. How plain is it, that he who is 
 able to subdue all things unto himself, is able to do 
 any thing ; that he who puts all things under his own 
 
 divinity. For every creature is, by the mere fact of his creation, 
 the servant of his maker. Not so of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for 
 he took upon himself the form of a servant. Therefore he is, he 
 can be, no creature. Therefore he is "over all God blessed for 
 ever." 
 
 5 
 
50 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 feet, does it by his own agency ; and that he who is 
 now head over all things, is qualified to be head over 
 all things forevermore.* 
 
 • Dwight's Theology', Ridgley's Divinity, Stuart's Letters to 
 Channing-. 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST PROVED BY HIS 
 ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 The peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to 
 Christ in the Scriptures. 
 
 1. Eternity. Rev. i. 10, 11, 13, 17, 18. « 1 was 
 in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me 
 a great voice as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha 
 and Omega, the first and the last. And 1 turned to 
 see the voice that spake with me, and being turned 
 I saw seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst 
 of the seven candlesticks one like unto- the Son of 
 man : And when 1 saw him I fell at his feet as dead ; 
 and he laid his right hand upon me, saying. Fear not, 
 I am the first and the last : 1 am he that liveth, and 
 was dead ; and behold 1 am alive forever more." Rev. 
 ii. 8, " These things saith the first and the last, who 
 was dead and is alive again." Isaiah xliv. 6, " Thus 
 saith Jehovah, king of Israel, and his Redeemer, Je- 
 hovah of hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and 
 besides me there is no God." Isaiah xlviii. 12, 
 " Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called ; 
 I am He, 1 am the first, 1 also am the last : my hand 
 
52 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 also hath laid the foundation of the earth," &c. In 
 the two first of these passages it cannot be disputed 
 that the person spoken of by St. John, and after- 
 wards speaking of himself, who was like unto the 
 Son of man, who was dead and is alive again, and 
 liveth forevermore, was Christ ; and this person in 
 four instances declares himself to be the first and 
 the last ; the strongest assertion that eternity past 
 and to come belongs to himself. If he is the first, 
 none can be before him, if the last, none can be after 
 him. In the two last passages from the prophet 
 Isaiah, (the last of which was written concerning 
 Christ,) Jehovah of hosts, who declares that besides 
 himself there is no God, declares also that he is the 
 first, and that he is the last. This language, with 
 mathematical certainty, is attributable to but one 
 being, and that being is the only living and true God. 
 John i. 1 , 2, " In the beginning* was the ^\'ord,and 
 
 * To g-et rid of the difficulty which this passage presents to the 
 doctrine of Unitarians, they tell us, in a note in the improved ver- 
 sion, that tv a^^>i, here rendered "In the beginning," signifies 
 "from the commencement of Christ's ministry." The " Word," 
 (xoyoc) they admit to be Christ. The idea tlien contained in the 
 first clause of this passage, viz.: " In the beginning was the Word," 
 is, according to their improved version the following: " From the 
 commencement of Christ's ministry, Christ existed;" that is, 
 Christ had an existence, when he commenced his ministry. This 
 must for ever sUence all tliose who believe that he was not ahve 
 at that time. But I wonder whether the editors of tliis version 
 forgot that he existed thuty years before "the beginning?'* 
 
A PLEA FOK THE TRINITY. 53 
 
 the Word was with God, and the Word was God ; 
 the same was in the beginning with God." Micah 
 V. 2, " And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou 
 be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of 
 thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler 
 in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from 
 everlasting." This passage was in a sense prover- 
 bially acknowledged by the Jewish nation to be a 
 prophecy of Christ, see Matt. ii. 6, where it is quoted 
 as such by the Pharisees in answer to Herod's in- 
 quiry concerning the birthplace of the Messiah. 
 Consequently Christ was from everlasting. By these 
 names and other ascriptions of eternity to Christ, he 
 is declared to be underived or self-existent. 
 
 2. Omnipotence is directly ascribed to Christ. 
 Rev. i. 8, " 1 am Alpha and Omega, the beginning 
 and the ending, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, 
 and who is to come, the Almighty." In the eleventh 
 verse of this chapter Christ utters these words of 
 himself; either then there are two persons who truly 
 say these things each of himself, or Christ declares 
 them of himself in both these verses. The choice in 
 this alternative is freely given to the Unitarians, for 
 either way the great question in debate is determin- 
 ed with equal certainty. If Christ speaks die words 
 in the eighth verse, he is the Almighty, if not, there are 
 two persons who are the Alpha and the Omega, the 
 first and the last.* 
 
 * The editors of the improved version thought it the wisest 
 5* 
 
54 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 The most proper mode, however, of exhibiting the 
 omnipotence of Christ, is to appeal to those acts by 
 which it is peculiarly displayed. When we read 
 John i. 3, " All things were made by him, and with- 
 out him was not any thing made which was made ;" 
 and Heb. i. 2, " Upholding all things by the word of 
 his power," we are presented with the strongest pos- 
 sible proofs that his power is unlimited. He who 
 created and upholds the universe, plainly can do 
 every thing, which, in its nature, is possible, and is 
 in the absolute sense omnipotent. 
 
 Omniscience is also ascribed to Christ, John xxi. 
 17, "Peter saith unto him, Lord thou knowest all 
 things." To this ascription of omniscience Christ 
 made no reply, and therefore admits it in its full la- 
 titude. If it had not been true it is impossible that 
 he should have permitted Peter to continue in so 
 dangerous an error. 
 
 Matt, xi, 27, " All things are delivered unto me 
 of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son but 
 the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father 
 
 plan silently to draw tlieir pen over the above clause in verse 11, 
 and say little or nothing- about it. And how can we blame them 
 for it, they wished to get rid of the ** obnoxious" doctrine of 
 Christ's deity ; and what else could they do with such a stubborn 
 passage. But they appeared to forget verse 17, where Chi-ist 
 again says of himself " I am the first and the last." Perhaps when 
 they print another edition of their improved version, tliey will leave 
 tliat out likewise. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITT. 55 
 
 save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will 
 reveal him." In this passage both the omniscience 
 and incomprehensibility of Christ are declared by 
 himself. He who knows the Father is omniscient. 
 He who is known only by the Father is incompre- 
 hensible. 
 
 The Scriptures declare that Jesus knew the 
 thoughts of men. Matt. ix. 4, " And Jesus, knowing 
 their thoughts." Rev. ii. 23, " And all the churches 
 shall know that 1 am He which searcheth the reins 
 and hearts." That the Son here speaks see verse 18. 
 John ii. 24, 25, " He knew what was in man." He 
 is solemnly appealed to in prayer as knowing the 
 hearts of all. Acts i. 24, "Thou, Lord, which knowest 
 the hearts of all." His disciples bear testimony to 
 his omniscience just before his crucifixion, John xvi. 
 30, " Now we are sure that thou knowest all things." 
 Here it is particularly declared that Jesus knew the 
 hearts. " He searcheth the reins and hearts." Now 
 this prerogative belongs to the Deity alone. Jer. 
 xvii. 10, "1 the Lord search the hearts, I try the 
 reins." 1 Kings viii. 39, " Thou Lord, even thou 
 o NL Y, knowest the hearts of all the children of men ;" 
 but Christ knoweth the hearts of all, therefore Christ 
 is Jehovah. 
 
 4. Omnipresence is ascribed to Christ. Matt, 
 xviii. 20, " Where two or three are met together 
 in my name, there am 1 in the midst of them." 
 
56 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITY. 
 
 This fact, the gathering together of persons in the 
 name of Christ, has from the times of the apos- 
 tles, yearly existed in thousands of places : Yet 
 Christ, according to his own declaration, is in the 
 midst of all these assemblies, consequently, omni- 
 present. He also declared himself to be in heaven 
 at the same time that he was on earth. John iii. 
 13. " No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he 
 that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
 which is in heaven.''' If in heaven and on earth at 
 the same time, he must be omnipresent ; and if om- 
 nipresent, he must be tiie supreme God. For 
 further evidence of his omnipresence, see Matt, 
 xxviii. 20. 
 
 5. Immutability is ascribed to Christ. Heb. xiii. 
 8. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for 
 ever." Psalm cii. 27, and quoted Heb. i. 10. " And 
 thou. Lord, in tiie beginning hast laid the foundation 
 of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy 
 hands ; they shall perish but thou remainest : yea, 
 all of them shall wax old as doth a garment, and as 
 a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be 
 changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall 
 have no end." This passage is declared by St. 
 Paul to be spoken of Christ ; and in both passages 
 he is declared to possess absolute immutai)ility. 
 
 Here, then, the word of God directly ascribes to 
 Christ the attributes of eternity, omnipotence, omni- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 57 
 
 science, omnipresence, and immutability. If a crea- 
 ture can possess tliese attributes, then Christ may be 
 a creature : But a creature cannot possess those 
 attributes ; and if a creature cannot, Deity alone 
 can ; but Jesus Christ possesses them, therefore 
 Jesus Christ is the supreme God.* 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Gill's Divinity, Clarke's Commentary. 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST PROVED BY HIS 
 NAMES AND WORSHIP. 
 
 The names of God are in the Scriptures applied 
 to Christ. 
 
 1. He is directly called God. John i. 1, " In the 
 beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God." In this passage, St. 
 John has not only declared that Christ is God, but 
 to prevent any possible mistake concerning what he 
 meant by the Word of God, has told us that he was 
 co-eternal with God the Father, and that he is the 
 creator of every thing which exists. Were the Scrip- 
 tures allowed to speak their own language, this sin- 
 gle passage would decide the controversy ; for it is 
 impossible to declare in stronger language or more 
 explicit, that Christ is God, in the highest sense ori- 
 ginally and witliout derivation.* 
 
 • On tills text, Griesbach observes, " In primus locus ille, John 
 i. 1, 2, 3, tarn perspicinis esf, atqite omnibus except ionibus major, ut 
 7jeque interpretum neque criticonim audacibus conatibxis unquam 
 everti atque veritatis defensoribus eripi possit." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 59 
 
 Romans ix. 5, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." 
 
 " John i. 1 — 3, is so clear, and so far above all exception, that 
 the daring attempts of both commentators and critics can neither 
 overthrow it, nor wrest it fi'om the defenders of truth." 
 
 K.at Qic; >iv Koyoc, is in the improved version, rendered thus, 
 "And the Word was a God." Because ©to; is destitute of the 
 article, the authors of tliis version pretend to think it a sufficient 
 reason for so rendering it. But Gm is likewise destitute of the 
 article in verses 6, 12, 13, and 18, of the same chapter, (and in 
 many other places in the New Testament,) but yet they have uni- 
 formly rendered it not " a God," but God. 
 
 Such fraudulent dealing with the language of Scripture de- 
 serves the severest reprehension. 
 
 If St. John had said, »*; i \o-yo( nv o Qm, it would have convey- 
 ed a very different meaning from, " and the word was God." It 
 would have declared that the word was the God with whom he 
 was said to he. 
 
 Mr. Thompson, of Edinburgh, has recently made a discovery, 
 which deserves to be ranked with the most splendid discoveries 
 of Unitarians, in tlie nineteenth century. Succeeding generations 
 of Unitarians (if there are any), ^vill no doubt honour his memory 
 for this discovery, as much as they will that of IVIr. Belsham, for 
 discovering, that, during the apostolic age, the bodily presence of 
 Christ was with each of the apostles, individually, at the same mo- 
 ment of time, when they were scattered in all parts of the earth. 
 Mr. T.'s discovery is this, 'that if John had intended to say, that 
 Christ was o God, he could have employed no other language 
 than he has employed.' I wonder whether this modern Bacon 
 thought, that if John had intended to express the inferiority of 
 Christ to God, he not only could, but doubtless would, have used 
 a different form of expression from one that conveyed an entirely 
 different meaning? 
 
60 
 
 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Psalm xlv. 6, quoted in Heb. i. 8, " Unto the Son 
 he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." 
 
 The amount of Mr. T.'s argoiment is this, "Because John could 
 not have spoken otherwise, had he intended lo call the word 
 • a Ood,' therefore, it is highly probable, that he did mean to caU 
 him thus." 
 
 I am not acquainted with Mr. Thompson, but I really tliink he 
 must have either studied Mr. Belsham's <« Elements of the Philoso- 
 phy of the Mind;" or, have been educated at Hackney, his reason- 
 ing is so demonstrative. Let us test it. Because St. John, when 
 he declared that " no man hath seen God at any time," (ch. i. 18, 
 Qiov ouJiit iai^oLKt TrmTTCTi,) could not have spoken differently had 
 he intended to say, that no man hath seen a God at any time ; 
 therefore, it is highly probable that he intended to say, that no 
 man hath seen a God at any time. 
 
 Priestley, Lindsay, Wakefield, and others, have adopted a dif- 
 ferent translation of xoya;; they have rendered it " Wisdom." 
 " In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and 
 God was Wisdom." According to this rendering, we are to un- 
 derstand the apostle as gravely asserting, that God had Wisdom 
 (a necessary attribute of deity), in the beginning. But (ver. 14.) 
 "Wisdom became man," that is, the Deity parted tvith hk aitri- 
 bute Wisdom, and was destitute of it, (and consequently unwise), 
 while it became man. Or again: By comparing the last clause 
 of ver. 1, "And God was Wisdom," with ver. 14, "And Wis- 
 dom became man," it irresistibly follows, that God " became 
 man, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of 
 the only begotten of the Father," &c. It is unnecessary to pursue 
 this furtlier. 
 
 Other Unitarians render xs^oj "power." " In the beginning 
 was the power, and the power was with God, and tlie power was 
 God." Ver. 14, " And the power became man." What is said 
 above respecting Wisdom, will, with equal force, apply to this 
 rendering. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 61 
 
 This is addressed by God the Father to the Son : 
 The Father, therefore, has seen proper to call the 
 Son God. Who, therefore, can question the pro- 
 priety of the application ? 
 
 Paul denominates him God in his charge to the 
 Ephesian elders. Acts xx. 28, " Take heed to all 
 the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood." 
 
 2. He is called the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. ii. 8, 
 " Had they known this, they would not have cruci- 
 fied the Lord of glory." 
 
 3. He is called the true God. 1 John v. 20, 
 " We are in him that is true — this is the true God 
 and eternal life." If this passage admits of any 
 
 On the 1st verse of this chapter, Professor Norton (Christian Dis- 
 ciple, vol. i. p. 424), says, " He [John] teaches that it [the Logos or 
 Word] is to be referred immediately to God himself. ' In the 
 beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the 
 Logos was God;' that is to say, the Logos was always with God. 
 What is properly expressed by this term is, that divine power, 
 which has been always, and has been always with God." [That is 
 to say, God had divine power in tlie beginning, and this divine 
 power was always with him. If this be the true meaning, it is 
 not to be wondered at, that after John wrote his gospel, we do 
 not hear of any who maintained that God had not " divine 
 power" "always."] " ' dnd the Logos was God;' that is, this 
 divine power is to be referred immediately to God; the term Is 
 not to be understood as denoting any other being." [That is, that 
 divine power, which was in the beginning with God, was God 
 himself.] 
 
 6 
 
62 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 comment, it must be that of Christ himself, who 
 says, "I am the Hfe ;" and that of the Evangehst, 
 who in the 1st chapter of this epistle, and 2d verse, 
 says, " For the life was manifested, 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. 
 
 4. Christ is called the mighty God. Isaiah vii. 6, 
 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, 
 and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and 
 his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
 mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of 
 peace." This child, this son, is the mighty God. 
 He who admits that a child, a son, is the mighty 
 God, will certainly admit that this can be no other 
 than Christ. He who does not, will charge Isaiah 
 with falsehood. 
 
 In Isaiah xlviii. 12, and onward, we have these 
 words : " Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my 
 called ; I am He, I am the first, I also am the last : 
 mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, 
 and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: Icall 
 unto them, they stand up to together. Come ye 
 near unto me, hear ye this : I have not spoken in 
 secret from the beginning, from the time that it was, 
 there am I : and now the Lord God and his Spirit 
 hath sent me. Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, 
 the Holy One of Israel, I am the Lord thy God." 
 Here the person speaking, informs us that he is the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 63 
 
 first and the last, that he has founded the earth and 
 spanned the heavens ; that he is Jehovah God, the 
 Redeemer, and the Holy One of Israel ; and yet he 
 says, that the Lord Jehovali, and his Spirit, hath 
 sent him. The person sending, therefore, is Jeho- 
 vah, and the person sent is also Jehovah. 
 
 5. He is called the Lord God of Israel. Exodus 
 xxiv. 9, 10, "Then went up Moses and Aaron, Na- 
 dab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 
 and they saw the God of Israel." Psalm Ixviii. 17, 
 18, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, 
 even thousands of angels : the Lord is among them, 
 as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended 
 on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast 
 received gifts for men." Ephes. iv. 8, " Wherefore, 
 he saith, When he ascended on high, he led cap- 
 tivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now 
 that he ascended, what is it but that he descend- 
 ed first, into the lower parts of the earth? He 
 that descended is the same also that ascended 
 up far above all heavens, that he might fill all 
 things." Here the Apostle informs us, that the per- 
 son who ascended on high, and led captivity captive, 
 is Christ. The Psalmist informs us, that the person 
 who ascended on high, and led captivity captive, is 
 the Lord who appeared in Sinai : And Moses in- 
 forms, that the Lord who appeared in Sinai, was 
 the God of Israel. We also know, that, no man 
 hath seen God the Father, at any time: Christ, 
 therefore, is the God of Israel ; and of course, the 
 
64 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 God of Israel so often mentioned in the Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 6. He is called the Most High God. In Psalm 
 Ixxviii. 18 and 56, it is said of the Israelites, in the 
 wilderness, "They tempted God in their heart, 
 by asking m«at for their lust:" "They tempted 
 and provoked the most high God, and kept not 
 his testimonies." In drawing instruction and admo- 
 nition from their conduct and experience, the apos- 
 tle Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 9, "Neither let us tempt 
 Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were 
 destroyed of serpents." These texts do both relate 
 to the same rebellious acts of the Israelites, in the 
 wilderness. In the former of them, the person who 
 was tempted is called the most high God ; in the lat- 
 ter, he is called Christ — therefore, Christ is the most 
 high God; and the sin of tempting Christ, against 
 which Christians are admonished, is the very same, 
 in nature and in guilt, with the sin committed by the 
 Israelites in tempting the most high God. 
 
 7. He is called the great God. Titus ii. 1 3, Look- 
 ing for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of 
 the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In 
 the Greek, it is the " the great God, even our Sa- 
 viour, Jesus Christ." God the Father will not ap- 
 pear at the judgment. If, then, Christ be not the 
 great God, God will not appear at judgment at all. 
 Kai, the conjunction here used, is rendered exactly, 
 in many places, by the English word even; particu^ 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 65 
 
 larly in the phrase, " God and our Father," found 
 Gal. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 16, «fec. ; in the 
 last of these places, the translators have rendered it 
 even, as they plainly ought to have done in both the 
 others, since the present rendering makes the Apos- 
 tle speak nonsense. 
 
 8. He is called Jehovah. On this subject. Dr. 
 Horsley observes, "The word Jehovah, being de- 
 scriptive of the divine essence, is equally the name 
 of every one of the three persons in that essence. 
 The compound Jehovah-Sabaoth belongs properly 
 to the second person, being his appropriate demiur- 
 gic title ; describing not merely the Lord of such 
 armies as military leaders bring into the field, but 
 the unmade, self-existent, maker and sustainer of 
 the w\\o\q array and order of the universe." This is 
 likewise the sentiment of the Jews. Isaiah vi. 1, 3, 
 "In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw Jehovah 
 ^sitting on his throne, high and lifted up, and his train 
 filled the temple : and one of the seraphims cried 
 unto another, and said. Holy! holy! holy is Jeho- 
 vah of hosts!" And again, in the 5, 8, 1 1, and 12lh 
 verses of the same chapter. St. John quoting the 
 9th and 16th verses of this chapter, in his gospel, 
 chapter xii. 40, says, " These things said Esaias, 
 when he saw his," that is Christ's, " glory, and spake 
 of him." The apostle John, therefore, assures us, 
 that Christ is Jehovah of hosts. 
 
 Isaiah xl. 3, " The voice of one that crieth in the 
 6* 
 
66 A PLEA FOR THE TRIMTY. 
 
 wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make 
 straight in the desert a highway for our God." John 
 *he Baptist, when asked by the messengers of the 
 Sanhedrim, Who art thou ? answered, John i. 23, 
 " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
 Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the pro- 
 phet Esaias." St. INIatthew speaking of John the 
 Baptist, ciiap. iii. 3, says, " This is he that was 
 spoken of by Esaias the prophet, saying. Prepare ye 
 the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 
 From these passages, it is evident, that Christ, be> 
 fore whom John cried, was the Lord whose ways he 
 directed thus to be prepared in the wilderness. The 
 Jehovah spoken of by the prophet, is the Jehovah of 
 hosts, who said, Mai. iii. 1, "Behold,! will send 
 my messenger, and he shal} prepare the way before 
 me." 
 
 Exodus iii. 2 — 6, " And the Angel-Jehovah ap- 
 peared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst 
 of the bush, and he looked, and behold the bush 
 burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 
 And Moses said, 1 will now turn aside, and see this 
 great sight, why the bush is not burned. And, when 
 Jehovah 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 1. And he 
 said, Draw not nigh hither ; put off thy shoes from 
 thy feet, for the place where thou standest is holy 
 groiind. Moreover, he said, T am the God of thy 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 67 
 
 father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
 the God of Jacob." The word angel, denotes a per- 
 son sent, and of course, imphes a person sending. 
 The person here sent is called Jehovah, and styles 
 himself the Goil of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
 the God of Jacob. It needs no words to show, that 
 the person sent cannot be God the Father, or that 
 he must be the angel of the covenant ; God the Son, 
 Christ, therefore, is Jehovah, mentioned in this pas- 
 sage as " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of 
 Jacob." 
 
 Isaiah viii. 13, 14, "Sanctify Jehovah of hosts 
 himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be 
 your dread, and He shall be for a sanctuary ; but for 
 a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, to both 
 the houses of Israel." He who was to be a stum- 
 bling stone, and a rock of offence, is called by Isaiah, 
 the Lord, or Jehovah of hosts, and he bids the chil- 
 dren of Israel " sanctify (honour, worship, and mag- 
 nify,) him^ and make him their fear, and their dread." 
 Fear, is here put for the object of fear, which is God ; 
 but the apostles Paul and Peter apply this expressly 
 to Christ. Rom. ix. 32, 33, "They stumbled at 
 the stuwbUng stone ; as it is written, Behold, I lay 
 in Zion a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence ; 
 and whosoever believeth in him (Christ) shall not 
 be ashamed." 1 Peter ii. 7, 8, " Unto you, therefore, 
 who believe, he (Christ Jesus) is precious ; but unto 
 them who are disobedient, the stone which the 
 
68 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITF. 
 
 builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the 
 corner, and a stone of stinnhling^ and a rock of of- 
 fence^ to those who stumble at the word." There- 
 fore Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts ; is to 
 be sanctified {worshipped and magnified) and is the 
 true object of religious fear and reverence. 
 
 " Psalm xcvii. 7, " Worship him all ye gods ;" com- 
 pared with Heb. i. 6, " When he bringeth in his 
 first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the 
 angels of God worship him." That glorious and 
 magnificent description in the ninety-seventh Psalm, 
 is of one, who in several parts of it is called Jeho- 
 vah, and worship commanded to be given to him; 
 " Worship him all ye gods." But the aposde says it 
 was THE Son of God who was spoken of in that 
 sacred hymn. Therefore he is Jehovah, to whom 
 divine loorship is due, and of whom the glorious things 
 in that Psalm (which are proper to none but the 
 true God,) are said. 
 
 Zech. xii. 10, " And 1 (viz., Jehovah) will pour 
 upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, 
 and they shall look upon me, whom they have 
 pierced ;" John xix. 34, " One of the soldiers with 
 a spear pierced his (Christ's) side; that the scripture 
 should be fulfilled, 'They shall look on him ichom 
 they pierced,''''' Jesus Christ, therefore is Jehovah. 
 
 Zech. ii, 8, 9, " For thus saith the Lord (Jeho- 
 vah) of hosts ; After the glory hath he sent me unto 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 69 
 
 the nations that spoiled you : for he that toucheth 
 you, toucheth the apple of his eye. For behold I 
 will shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a 
 spoil to their servants ; and ye shall know that Je- 
 hovah of hosts hath sent me." The language of this 
 proclamation first claims our attention. The Lord 
 of hosts is the speaker, (verse eighth) yet he speaks 
 as one who is sent : at the same time he says, " 1 
 will shake my hand upon them ;" " by this ye shall 
 know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me.'' There 
 are evidently two persons here called " the Lord of 
 hosts ;" one who is sent, and the other he who sent 
 him : even the Son of God, and the Father who sent 
 him, as his willing messenger, to be the Saviour of 
 his people. 
 
 The same doctrine is contained in verses 10, 11, 
 " Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion ; for, lo, I 
 come, and 1 will dwell in the midst of thee, saith 
 Jehovah, and many nations shall be joined to Jeho- 
 vah in that day, and shall be my people, and 1 will 
 dwell in the midst of them, and thou shalt know that 
 Jehovah of hosts hath sent me unto thee."* 
 
 * Many Unitarians have a singtilar method of endeavouring to 
 neutralize any arguments in favour of the doctrine of the trinity, 
 with which they are rather hardly pressed. We will give an ex- 
 ample from Mr. Lindsey's "Vindication," p. 303. After quoting 
 that argument, in favoUl' of a plurahty in the divine essence, con- 
 tained in Zech. ii. 10, 11, and finding he can do notliing with it, 
 he sneermgly adds, " Mr. Lowth, I suppose, would have thera 
 
70 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 The application of these pecuhar names of the 
 Godhead to our Saviour, furnishes an unanswerable 
 argument to prove his supreme divinity. For first, 
 in Isaiah xHii. 8, God declares that he will not give 
 his name, or glory (both terms here meaning the 
 same thing) to another. Yet in the word of this 
 same God, his several peculiar and distinguishing 
 names are given to Jesus Christ, — not indeed com- 
 municated to him; but applied to him, as his own 
 
 (the above passages) to signify, that our Jehovah, one eternal 
 God, sent another eternal God ;" and this is all he adds by way of 
 refuting the argument. With respect to this one circumstance, I 
 will agree with Unitarians, in thinking that Mr. Lindsey was wise. 
 
 I will also adduce an example or two from a more modern writer. 
 He appears to be endeavoui-ing to demonsti-ate mathematically 
 that Jesus Chi-ist is not God. He says, " If Clu-ist is tlie self-ex- 
 istent God, and at tlie same time the Son of the same God, then 
 he must be the son of himself. If he is the self-existent God, and 
 if that very self-existent God is the father of oui- Lord Jesus 
 Christ, tlien he is the father of liimself ; and if he is the father 
 of that being whose son he is, then he must be his own grand- 
 father." 
 
 "If God of Iiis own substance brought forth Christ without the 
 instrumentality of a mother, tlien he must be a female, and the 
 mother of Christ, because the bearing of a child, or bringing 
 fortli young, is an infalhble mark of a female." Rev. Mr. Kin- 
 kade's Bible Doctrine, pp. 41. 133. 
 
 It was only the fore-mentioned consideration that induced me 
 to pollute my pages with these shocking blasphemies. And it is 
 thus that the declarations of scripture are sneered at and ridicided, 
 by those who wish to have them conformable to their owti pre« 
 conceived notions. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 71 
 
 original and proper appellations. This we are taught 
 at large, Exodus xxiii. 20, 21, " Behold 1 send an 
 angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to 
 bring thee into the place which 1 have prepared. 
 Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not, 
 for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my 
 name is in himy Here we are informed that the 
 angel sent before the Israelites would not pardon 
 their transgressions if they provoke him, and are thus 
 certainly taught that he possessed a right and power 
 of pardoning sin. " But who can forgive sin except 
 God." We are further informed that the name of 
 God is in this angel, not that it is given or commu- 
 nicated to him, but that it exists in him and belongs 
 to him originally. What this name is, the paragraph 
 last quoted from Isaiah declares to us : "I am Jeho- 
 vah ; that is my name." It is also declared in the same 
 manner to Moses when asking of God, Exodus iii. 
 13, what was his name, that he might declare it to 
 the children of Israel. " And God said unto Moses, 
 ' / am that I am ;' thus shall ye say unto the chil- 
 dren of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you." It is 
 hardly necessary to remark that the name " I am" 
 hath the same import with Jehovah. All this is ren- 
 dered perfecdy consistent and obvious by the scrip- 
 tural accounts of Christ. "I and my Father are 
 one," said our Saviour to the Jews. For God, there- 
 fore, in his own word to give and apply his name or 
 glory to Christ is not to give it to another, but to 
 
72 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 apply to Christ names which are his own proper ap- 
 pellations. But according to the Unitarian doctrine 
 this assertion on the part of God cannot be true, — 
 the doctrine therefore is false ; " for let God be true, 
 but every man a liar." That is, every man who op- 
 poses God. 
 
 2.. In Deuteronomy xxxii. 39, in Isaiah xliii. 10, 
 and xliv. 6, 8, with xlv. 5, 14, 21, and in various 
 other places, God says that there is no God besides 
 him, that there is none else, and that he knows 
 not any. Yet Christ is called God, and announced 
 by the other names of the Deity in the several pas- 
 sages above mentioned, and in many others, and this 
 by the same God who made this declaration. That 
 he is not so called in a subordinate, delegated, or 
 derived sense is unquestionably evident, first, from 
 the titles given him, viz.: the true God, the mighty 
 God, the God of Israel, Jehovah of hosts, and I am ; 
 all of them names never given in the Scriptures to 
 any being but the Deity. Secondly, From the 
 things ascribed to Christ in the same passages, many 
 of which cannot be predicated of any being except 
 the only living and true God. 
 
 If it be admitted then, that the Scriptures speak 
 language which is to be understood in its customary 
 sense, the only sense in which it can be intelligible to 
 those to whom it was addressed, and to ninety-nine 
 hundredths of those for whom the Scriptures were 
 written ; if it be admitted, that God has chosen the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 73 
 
 most proper terms to communicate true ideas of 
 himself to mankind, it cannot be denied that Jesus 
 Christ is truly and perfectly God.* 
 
 We will next prove the supreme divinity of Jesus 
 Christ by his worship. 
 
 We will first remark upon what is intend-ed by 
 worship in general, and religious worship in particu- 
 lar. 
 
 It is well known that the Unitarians understand 
 the word worship in a sense very different from what 
 we do, as taking it in a limited sense for our express- 
 ing some degree of humility, or reverence to a per- 
 son whom we acknowledge in some respects to be 
 our superior : but, whatever external signs of reve- 
 rence, or words, we use as expressive of our regard 
 to him who is the object thereof, this when applied to 
 our Saviour is no more that what they suppose to be 
 due to a person below the Father. Therefore, that 
 we may not mistake the meaning of the word, let it 
 be considered that worship is either civil or religious ; 
 the former contains in it that honour and respect 
 which is given to superiors, which is sometimes ex- 
 pressed by bowing or falling down before them, or 
 some other marks of humility, which their advanced 
 station in the world requires ; though this is seldom 
 called worshipping them, and it is always distin- 
 
 * Dwight'9 Theology, Jones on the Trinity. Scott. Wardlaw. 
 Clear Display of the Trinity, by a Layman. 
 7 
 
74 
 
 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 guished from religious worship, even when the same 
 gestures are used therein. It is true, there is one 
 scripture, in which the same word is applied to both, 
 in 1 Chron. xxix. 20, where it is said, " All the con- 
 gregation bowed down their heads and worshipped 
 the Lord and the King;" that is, they paid civil 
 respect, accompanied with those actions that are ex- 
 pressive of humility, and that honour which was due 
 to David ; but their worship given to God, was di- 
 vine, or religious. This is the only sense in which 
 we understand worship in this argument; and it 
 includes in it adoration and invocation. In the 
 former, we ascribe infinite perfections unto God, 
 either directi}^ or by consequence ; an instance of 
 which we have in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12, "Thine, 
 O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the 
 glory, and the victory, and the majesty, for all that 
 is in the heaven and in the earth is thine ; tliine is 
 the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head 
 over all. Both riches and honour come of thee ; and 
 in thine hand it is to make great and to give strength 
 unto all :" and in Deut. xxxii. 3, in which we are 
 said to ascribe greatness unto him ; and in Rom. i. 
 21, to glorify him as God, or give unto him the glory 
 due to his name. Psalm xxix. 2.* 
 
 * The Arians hold, that Christ should have divine worship paid 
 him; and they themselves worsliip him with prayer and praise. 
 But by so doing they involve themselves in a great absurdity; be- 
 cause, they deny his omniscience and omnipresence, and affirm 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 10 
 
 Invocation is that wherein we glorify God as the 
 fountain of blessedness, when we ask those things 
 from him which none but a God can give ; which is 
 sometimes called seeking the Lord, Psal. cv. 4, or 
 calling upon him, Psal. 1. 1 5 ; and this includes in it 
 all those duties which we perform, in which we con- 
 sider him a God of infinite perfections, and ourselves 
 dependant on him, and desirous to receive all those 
 blessings from him which we stand in need of; 
 and particularly faith, in the various acts thereof, is 
 a branch of religious worship, as denoting its object 
 to be a divine person ; as also supreme love, and 
 universal obedience. And, indeed, it contains in it 
 the whole of religion, in which we have a due regard 
 of that infinite distance that there is between him 
 and the best of creatures ; and religious worship is 
 nowhere in Scripture taken in a lower sense than 
 this. 
 
 It shall now be proved that divine worship is 
 required to be rendered to Christ. And, 
 
 tliat none but the Father (by this term they mean the true God) 
 can possibly possess these attributes. But if Christ does not pos- 
 sess these attributes, or, at least, one of them, it is absurd in the 
 extreme to offer prayer and praise to him? as it is impossible that 
 he should receive the homage of the thousands of Christians who 
 are continually worshipping him in all parts of the world, espe- 
 cially on the Sabbatli. If he cannot receive their worship, it is 
 absurd in the extreme — it is idolatry to worship him. If he can* 
 he must possess attributes, wliich, according to themselves, none 
 but the Deity can possess. 
 
76 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 1. It is clear from John v. 22, 23, "For the 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
 judgment to the Son, that all men should honour 
 the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that 
 honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father 
 that hath sent him." In this passage, we are in- 
 formed that the infinite prerogative of judging the 
 universe, is committed by the Father to the Son, for 
 this, as at least one, if not the only, great end, that all 
 (that is without doubt, all intelligent creatures, the 
 word men not being in the original) should honour 
 the Son, even as they honour the Father ; that is, in 
 the same manner and in the same degree. 
 
 The final judgment being an act which eminently 
 displays the infinite perfections, is committed to the 
 Son, that he may be perceived with indubitable evi- 
 dence to possess these perfections ; and may there- 
 fore receive tliat peculiar honour which is due to 
 him only by whom they are possessed. The honour 
 which is due, in a peculiar sense, to God, consists 
 supremely in religious worship, in making him the 
 object of our supreme affection, and rendering to 
 him our supreme obedience. All this is here required 
 to Christ, in the same manner in which it is required 
 to the Father. Whether it be supposed, that this 
 passage be intended to include angels, or not, they 
 are expressly required to worship him in Psalm 
 xcvii. 7, "Confounded be all they that serve graven 
 images : worship him all ye gods." St. Paul quotes 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 77 
 
 a part of this verse in the following manner : " And 
 again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the 
 world, he saith, Let all the angels of God worship 
 him." It is, therefore, certain that all the angels of 
 God are required to worship Christ. That religious 
 worship is here intended is certain, because the 
 object of the worship commanded is directly oppos- 
 ed, in the command itself, to idols, and the worship 
 required to that which is forbidden ; " confounded 
 be all they that serve," that is, religiously worship, 
 " graven images, that boast themselves of idols ;" as 
 if God had said, worship no more graven images, nor 
 idols of any kind, for all their worshippers shall be 
 confounded. 
 
 In the same manner is this worship commanded 
 to both men and angels. Phil. ii. 9 — 11, " Wherefore, 
 God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name 
 which is above every name ; that at the name of 
 Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
 and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and 
 that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord to the glory of God the Father." In this 
 passage all celestial, terrestrial, and subterranean (as 
 it is in the original) are required to bow the knee to 
 Christ, and to confess him to be Lord. To bow the 
 knee, is a w^ell known appropriate phraseology to de- 
 note religious worship. " 1 have left me," says God 
 to Elijah, " seven thousand in Israel, all the knees 
 that have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth 
 7* 
 
78 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 which hath not kissed him." 1 Kings xix. 18, (see 
 Hosea xiii. 2, and Psahn ii. 2) ; St. Paul also says, 
 " 1 bow my knees to the Father of all mercies." 
 But to place it beyond all doubt, we need only refer, 
 to Isaiah xlv. 22, 23, where this passage is quoted, 
 " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the 
 eartii, for I am God, and there is none else. By 
 myself have 1 sworn, and the truth has gone out of 
 my mouth, the word, and it shall not be revoked, 
 Surely to me shall every knee bow — shall every 
 tongue swear, saying, Only to Jehovah belongeth 
 salvation and power."* 
 
 To ascribe to Jehovah salvation and power, 
 (which the Apostle informs us, is the same with con- 
 fessing that Jesus is Lord,) and to bow the knee 
 when making this ascription, is, undoubtedly, reli- 
 gious worship, if any thing is. Accordingly, this 
 ascription is often made by the saints in the Scrip- 
 tures, and the saints and angels in heaven. 
 
 In accordance with these requisitions we find 
 Christ actually worshipped in great numbers of 
 instances ; such as, for instance, the Syrophenician 
 woman's prayer, w^hich was directed to him. Matt. 
 XV. 22, " Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of 
 David;" and in verse 25, she came and wor- 
 shipped him saying, " Lord, help me," and this act 
 of religious worship was commended by our Saviour, 
 
 • Lowth's Translation. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 79 
 
 and her prayer answered. We have another re- 
 markable instance contained in that petition of the 
 man who came to him to cast the devil out of his 
 son, (Mark ix. 24,) who said with tears, " Lord I 
 believe, help my unbelief." And another instance 
 in John ix. 38, is very explicit on the point in ques- 
 tion. The man whose sight Jesus restored, and who 
 was cast out of the synagogue by the Jews, is the 
 instance to which 1 allude. Afterward, Jesus find- 
 ing him, asked him if he believed on the Son of God ; 
 he inquired who he was ; when Jesus had told him 
 he replied, " Lord, I believe," and St. John says he 
 worshipped him. Many more instances might be 
 produced, but these are sufficient to prove that Jesus 
 had divine worship paid to him while in this world. 
 I shall now produce instances of his being wor- 
 shipped before his incarnation, and after his ascen- 
 sion. In Genesis xviii. we are told that Jehovah 
 appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre, as 
 he sat in the door of his tent. The manner of his ap- 
 pearance was the following : as he lifted up his eyes 
 and looked, lo, three men stood by him, and he ran 
 and met them, and bowed himself towards the 
 ground. To one of them he said, " My Lord, if I 
 now have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, 
 1 pray thee, from thy servant," &c. The person 
 here spoken to is called by Abraham, my Lord; 
 this person in the thirteenth verse is called Jehovah, 
 and in the fourteenth verse says, " Is any thing too 
 
80 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 
 
 hard for Jehovah," and mforms Abraham of the de- 
 sti'uction of the cities of the plain, which he had de- 
 termined to bring upon them for their sins. To this 
 person Abraham prays repeatedly for the preserva- 
 tion of these cities ; Lot, also, to whom he also ap- 
 peared, as we read in the following chapter, prayed 
 to him for his own preservation, and that of the city 
 of Zoar, and was accepted. 
 
 These persons are in the first place called three 
 men. One of them, whom Abraham calls Adonai, 
 or Lord, is afterwards called by himself, by Abra- 
 ham, and by Moses, Jehovah, and was worshipped 
 both by Abraham and Lot. Now it will not be 
 pretended that God the Father appeared as a man, 
 or that he ate of the provision furnished by Abra- 
 ham, for no one hath seen God the Father at any 
 time ; yet this person is here styled Jehovah, and this 
 person was Christ. 
 
 2. In Judges xiii. the Angel-Jehovah appeared to 
 Manoah and his wife. When he departed, it is 
 said that Manoah knew that he was the Angel-Je- 
 hovah, and it is added, that ]Manoah said unto his 
 wife, " We shall surely die, because we have seen 
 God." But his wife said unto him, " If Jehovah 
 were pleased to kill us, he would not have received 
 a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering at our hands." 
 In verse sixteenth the angel had said, " Manoah, if 
 thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, offer it unto Jeho- 
 vah," for it is subjoined Manoah knew not that he 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 81 
 
 was the Angel-Jehovah. But after he had ascended 
 in the flame of the altar, then it is declared Manoah 
 knew that he was the Angel-Jehovah. The burnt- 
 offering and the meat-offering, Manoah and his wife 
 perceived themselves to have offered unwittingly to 
 him who had manifested to them his acceptance of 
 both at their hands. Here the worship is not only 
 presented to Christ, but what is of much more im- 
 portance to our purpose, was accepted by him. 
 
 3. David worships Christ in Psalms xlv. and Ixxii. 
 and cii., in ascribhig to him the praise which is due 
 to God only. In the two first he declares, that the 
 people shall praise him, and fear him, and fall down 
 before him, and serve him for ever and ever. In the 
 last, he makes to him a long continued prayer. 
 
 4. The seraphim worshipped him, saying " Holy, 
 holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts," Isaiah vi. 
 
 5. Stephen, in Acts vii. 59, 60, prayed to Christ." 
 " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, (or, 
 as it is in the original, invoking,) and saying. Lord 
 Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down and 
 cried with a loud voice. Lord, lay not this sin to their 
 charge ; and having said this he fell asleep." On this 
 prayer of St. Stephen 1 remark, First, Stephen was 
 at this time full of the Holy Ghost, (verse 55,) 
 and therefore perfectly secured from error. Secondly, 
 He was singularly favoured of God on account of 
 the greatness of his faith, and obedience ; and as a 
 peculiar testimony of the divine favour he was per- 
 
82 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 mitted to see the heavens opened, and to behold the 
 glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand 
 of God. Thirdly^ In the full assurance produced by 
 this vision, and the faith with which he beheld it, he 
 presented his final petitions to Christ. Fourthh/, 
 The first of these petitions respected the highest per- 
 sonal object that can be prayed for, viz.: the eternal 
 salvation of his soul, and attributed to him to whom 
 it was made that infinite power, wisdom, and good- 
 ness, which alone can bestow salvation. Fifthly, 
 The second petition was of the same nature, being 
 a prayer that his enemies might not be finally con- 
 demned for the sin of murdering him, and, of course, 
 attributed to the person to whom it was addressed 
 the power of forgiving, or condemning these mur- 
 derers. No higher act of worship was ever render- 
 ed than this, nor was any act of worship ever per- 
 formed on a more solemn occasion, nor by a person 
 better qualified to worship aright, nor with a more 
 illustrious testimony of acceptance. Yet this act of 
 worship was performed to Christ. Sixthly, This 
 was the very worship, and these were the very 
 prayers offered to God a little before by Christ at 
 his crucifixion. Stephen therefore worshipped Christ, 
 just as Christ worshipped the Father. 
 
 6. St. Paul often prays to Christ directly : parti- 
 cularly 1 Thess. iii. 11,12," Now God himself, even 
 our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our 
 way unto you, and the Lord make you increase and«< 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 83 
 
 abound in love one toward another, and toward 
 all men, even as we do toward you." Here a 
 prayer is offered up by St. Paul that he may be 
 guided to the Thessalonians, and that they may be 
 made to increase and abound in holiness, and be 
 established unto the end. This prayer is offered up 
 to God the Father and to our Lord Jesus Christ, in 
 the same manner and the same terms, both being 
 unitedly addressed in the same petition without any 
 note of distinction. The second of these petitions 
 is also offered up to Christ alone. The same peti- 
 tion in substance, is presented to the Father and Son 
 united in the same prayer. 
 
 Again, 2 Cor. xii. 8, " concerning this," that is, 
 the messenger of Satan sent to buffet him, St. Paul 
 says, " Thrice I besought the Lord, that it might 
 depart from me. But he said unto me. My grace is 
 sufficient for thee, for my power is made perfect in 
 weakness. Most gladly, therefore, will I rather 
 glory in mine infirmities, that the power of Christ 
 may rest upon me." In this passage, St. Paul in- 
 forms us, that he thrice prayed to Christ respecting 
 the particular subject mentioned. 
 
 7. St. Paul, in all his epistles except that to the 
 Hebrews, and St. John, in his second epistle, pray 
 to Christ. In that noted request, in which also Si- 
 las, Timothy, and Sosthenes united, that "Grace, 
 mercy, and peace" might be multiplied, or commu- 
 ^Pbated to those to whom they wrote, " from God, 
 
84 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," is an 
 express prayer to the Father and the Son united ; 
 to grant grace, mercy, and peace to men. These 
 are the highest of all blessings, and such as none 
 but Jehovah can grant ; yet Christ can grant them, 
 because the Spirit of inspiration directed that he 
 should be prayed to for them. 
 
 8. The blessing pronounced on Christian assem- 
 blies, is an act of religious worship rendered to 
 Christ. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, 
 be w^ith you all. Amen." " Peace be to the bre- 
 thren, and love with faith, from God the Father, 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ." Eph. vi. 23 ; or, as it is 
 more commonly, " The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ be with you all. Amen." The first of these 
 is equivalent to the blessing anciently pronounced, 
 by the high priest, on the children of Israel : " Je- 
 hovah bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah make his 
 face to shine upon thee, and be gracious to thee; 
 Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give 
 thee peace." It is the appropriate office of the 
 Father to bless and preserve ; of the Son, to give 
 grace and illumination ; and of the Spirit, to com- 
 municate peace. 
 
 Finally, So universal was the custom of praying 
 to Christ, that Christians were originally entitled as 
 their distinguishing appellation, "Those who call 
 on the name of Christ." Thus Ananias says^P 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 85 
 
 f Christ, Acts ix. 1 4, " Here he hath authority from 
 the chief priests to bind all wlio call on thy name." 
 The people of Damascus also, when they heard 
 Paul preach, were amazed, and said, Is not this he 
 who destroyed them that called on this name in 
 Jerusalem ?" 
 
 1 Cor. i. 1, " Paul, called to be an apostle of Je- 
 sus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes, 
 our brother, unto the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, called to be saints, with all that in every 
 place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 In all these instances, and in this universal manner, 
 was Christ worshipped. In the greater part of the 
 instances, the persons who rendered the worship 
 were inspired, and in the remaining instances, were 
 plainly under divine direction ; because the worship 
 was approved and accepted. But religious worship 
 is lawfully rendered to God only : this we know 
 from the mouth of Christ himself, quoting Deut. x. 
 20, in Matt. iv. 10, "It is written, Thou shalt wor- 
 ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
 serve." The angel also forbade John to worship him, 
 saying, " See thou do it not: worship God." Isaiah 
 also commands, " Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, 
 and let him be your fear, and your dread." God 
 also, in Exodus xxxiv. 14, says to the Israelites, 
 "Thou shalt worship no other God, for Jehovah, 
 whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Yet 
 
 ^'CJhrist is here directed to be worshipped, and is actu- 
 8 
 
S6 
 
 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITV. 
 
 ally worshipped by persons inspired. ] f, then, Christ 
 be not God, God has commanded another to be 
 worshipped ; and persons under the immediate direc- 
 tion of the Spirit, have worshipped another. The 
 whole church, the Bride, is commanded in Psalm 
 xlv., by that God who said unto him, " Thy throne 
 O God, is for ever and ever," thus, " Hearken, O 
 daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear, so 
 shall the King greatly desire thy beauty, for he is thy 
 Lord, and worship thou him." The church has in 
 all ages obeyed this command, and worshipped him. 
 Prophets have w^orshipped him — apostles have wor- 
 shipped him — men full of faith and of the Holy 
 Ghost, have besought his guidance, aid, grace, and 
 blessing while they lived ; and when they died have 
 besought him to receive their spirits into his own 
 eternal kingdom. If Christ is God, if he is Jehovah, 
 they have done their duty. If he is not God, if he 
 is not Jehovah, they have violated through life and 
 in death the first of Jehovah's commands in the 
 decalogue, " Thou shalt have no other gods before 
 me."* 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Ridgley's Di\-inity. 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS 
 CHRIST ANSWERED. 
 
 It is objected that the phrase "eternal Son,'' is 
 a contradiction in terms ; because if Christ be a 
 Son, he must have had a Father : " and the Father,'' 
 says the objector, " must have existed before the 
 Son ;" for " we are acquainted with no paternity 
 nor sonship among men, which does not imply pri- 
 ority on the part of the father, and posteriority on 
 the pait of the son ; therefore," says he, " it must 
 be so with respect to the relation of Father and 
 Son in the Godhead."* 
 
 * Modem Arlans, in proving Jesus to be a superangelic being, 
 found theii* chief argument on his being called " the Son of God," 
 and infer from this, that he must be above angels — a superangelic 
 being. But are not men and angels called the " sons of God?" See 
 Job i. 6; ii. 1; and xxxviii. 7; Gen. vi. 24; Hosea i. 10. Nay, of 
 Adam it is expressly said, he " was the Son of God." Luke iii. 
 38. If on account of Christ being called the Son of God, he is ar- 
 gued to be above men and angels — a superangelic being; then, as 
 men and angels, are also called the " sons of God," the conse- 
 quence must follow, that men and angels are sup erangehc beings. 
 
 Again, Christ is said to have been "made a little lower than 
 the angels," Heb. ii. 7, and tliose who argue that he was a super- 
 angelic being, admit that the Scriptures style him "the Son of 
 
OO A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 In answer to this objection, 1 would ask, with 
 tlie excellent Dr. Miller, " Can reasoning from such 
 principles be sound ? Have we any right to take for 
 granted, that the relation of father and son among 
 nxen is the highest model, the most exemplar of that 
 relation in the universe, to which every thing else 
 which bears that name must be conformed? How 
 know we but that sonship among men, is a distant 
 and obscure adumbration of something divine and 
 eternal ; of something as much above it in glory, as 
 the eternal mind is above the feeble grovelling mind 
 of man. No one can demonstrate that this is im- 
 possible ; neither can it be demonstrated that it is 
 even improbable : but until it is demonstrated that it 
 is not only improbable, but also impossible, all the 
 reasoning founded on the aforesaid assertion is only 
 a begging of the question : or, as is the same thing, 
 a gratuitous assumption, that, as sonship among 
 men implies attributes inconsisteet with divinity; so 
 Sonship in the Godhead must necessarily imply at- 
 tributes of precisely the same kind. Would it not 
 
 man." These things being so, I would ask, Why do the above- 
 mentioned individuals style him a superangelic being, when he 
 was the Son of man, and made lower than the angels? 
 
 Let them answer Uiis question, and they will have an answer to 
 a question frequently put by them to Trinitarians, viz. " Why do 
 we style Jesus God, when the Scriptiu-es style him the Son of 
 God." It is certainly more contradictory in our opponents to say 
 tluit he is above angels and men, and tlie Son of God ; when the 
 Scriptures affirm that he was the Son of man, and made lower than 
 tlie angels, than for us to say that the Son, who is the second per- 
 son in the Truiity, Is equal witli the Father, who is tlie first. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 89 
 
 be just as logical to argue, that, because God is said 
 in Scripture to rest from labour, to repent, and to 
 be angry, therefore these expressions must bear ex- 
 actly the same meaning when applied to the divine 
 nature, as when spoken of men."* 
 
 To say that " eternal Son," implies a contradic- 
 tion in terms, is a most presumptuous assumption of 
 the principle that God is a being altogether such an 
 one as ourselves. Because generation among men 
 necessarily implies priority in the order of time as 
 well as of nature on the part of the father, and de- 
 rivation and posteriority on the part of the son, the 
 objector infers that it must be so in the divine na- 
 ture. But is this a legitimate, is it a rational infer- 
 ence ? It certainly is not. That which is true as it 
 respects the nature of man, may be infinitely re- 
 moved from the truth as it respects the eternal God. 
 I would ask, has the sun ever existed a moment, 
 without sending out beams? And if the sun had 
 been an eternal being would there not have been an 
 
 * We must, however, give one recent Unitarian writer the cre- 
 dit of being consistent here; for he fully carries out tliis arg-u- 
 ment. Having asserted that as Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he 
 must, of course, be younger than God; or have come into existence 
 after him, because the Father is prior to the Son, among mankind: 
 he fully carries out the principle, when he comes to speak of the 
 person of God. He observes, " 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 represents him to be in 
 the shape of a man." " Ears, hands, and eyes are parts of an in- 
 telligent ruler, and if God has none of these, he cannot hear, han- 
 dle, nor see us." Rev. Mr. Kinkade's "Bible Doctrine," p. 160, 
 o* 
 
90 A PLIiA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 eternal necessary emanation of light from it ? But 
 God is confessedly eternal ; where then is the ab- 
 surdity, or contradiction of an eternal necessary 
 emanation from him ? Or if the objector pleases, an 
 eternal generation ? To deny the possibility of this, 
 or to assert that it is a manifest contradiction, either 
 in terms, or ideas, is to assert that though the Father 
 is from eternity, yet he could not act from all eter- 
 nity. Sonship even among men, implies no personal 
 inferiority. A son may be perfectly equal, and some- 
 times is greatly superior to his father in every de- 
 sirable quality ; and in general does in fact partake 
 of the same human nature, in all its fulness and per- 
 fection, with his parent. 
 
 " But still it is objected, that we cannot conceive 
 of generation in any other sense, than as implying 
 posteriority and derivation. But is this not saying, 
 in other words, that the objector is determined, in 
 the face of all argument, to persist in measuring Je- 
 hovah by earthly and human principles ? Shall we 
 never have done with such a perverse begging of the 
 question, as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is impious 
 in spirit ? The Scriptures declare that Christ is the 
 Son, the only begotten Son of the Father. To the 
 Son the Father is represented as saying, 'Thy 
 throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' And concern- 
 ing himself the Son declares, 'I and my Father are 
 one;' and there can be no more difficully in believ- 
 ing this, than there is in believing that there is an 
 eternal, omniscient, omnipresent Spirit, who made 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 91 
 
 all worlds out of nothing, and upholds them continu- 
 ally by the word of his power."* 
 
 It is said that Christ exhibits his inferiority to the 
 Father, by praying to him. John xvii. 
 
 But how if it be admitted, as Trinitarians univer- 
 sally admit, that he was a man, could he with pro- 
 priety do otherwise. He was placed under the same 
 law, and required generally to perform the same 
 duties required of other men. 
 
 The following passage seems to be a great fa- 
 vourite with the Arians; Rev. iii. 14, "These things 
 saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the be- 
 ginning of the creation of God." " Here," say they, 
 " Christ is plainly declared to be a creature : here 
 it is said that he is the first being that God created ; 
 and of course he must be a created being." But by 
 comparing their exposition with Colos. i. 16, " For 
 by him were all things created that are in heaven 
 and that are in the earth — all things were created 
 by him and for him," &c. and John i. 3, " All things 
 were made by him, and without him was not any 
 thing made that was made ;" we have the follow- 
 ing argument : All things, whether in heaven or in 
 the earth, were created by Christ ; but Christ is a 
 creature. Therefore Christ must have created him- 
 self. This must be true, or their exposition of the 
 above passage must be false. But the former can- 
 not be ; their interpretation therefore is false. 
 
 * Miller's Letters on Unitarianism. Ibid, on the eternal Sonehip 
 of Christ. 
 
92 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 The following is manifestly the true interpretation 
 of tliis passage. Christ is the originator* of the crea- 
 tion : It signifies this and nothing more, and this is 
 the only interpretation by which the Scriptures can 
 be either consistent, or true. 
 
 Another favourite passage is the following. Matt, 
 xix. 17, " Why callest thou me good ? there is none 
 good but one, that is God." 
 
 From this passage Unitarians argue that there is 
 but one person or being, who is God. Because, if but 
 one person is good, and that person is God, it must 
 of necessity follow, that there is but one person who 
 is God ; the name God being as much confined to 
 a single person, as the attribute goodness. But 
 this is utterly false ; the names Lord, God, Jehovah, 
 Jehovah of Hosts, the Almighty, Most High, Eternal, 
 God of Israel, &,c. being ascribed to the second and 
 third persons of the trinity, Unitarians themselves 
 being judges. The Arians in particular acknow- 
 ledge, that Christ is not only called God in the 
 Scriptures, but that he really is God, in a subordi- 
 nate, delegated, or derived sense. Take it this way, 
 therefore, and the objection, by proving too much 
 refutes itself, and proves nothing. 
 , But the truth is, that this criticism, upon which 
 some have even dared to undeify our Saviour, has 
 no foundation in the original. If you follow the 
 Greek by a literal translation it will be thus, "There 
 
 * It is thus in some copies of the original. See Clarke's Com- 
 mentary. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 93 
 
 is none good but the one God." And it happens 
 that the same Greek, word for word, occurs Mark 
 ii. 7, " Who can forgive sins but the one God," ren- 
 dered by our translators, " but God only." And 
 we have a plain matter of fact that the word ren- 
 dered in our translation one, cannot possibly admit 
 the sense of one person. Because Christ, who is 
 another person, took upon him to forgive sins. 
 
 The utmost therefore that can be gathered from 
 these words, is no more than this, " There is one 
 God," (and in this we are all agreed,) and that 
 there is none good beside him, which nobody will 
 dispute.* 
 
 It is likewise true, that the Scriptures declare in 
 an absolute sense, that Christ is good. 
 
 Exodus xxiv. 9, 10, " Then went up Moses and 
 Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
 of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel." Psalm 
 Ixviii. 17, 18, "The chariots of God are twenty 
 thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is 
 among them as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou 
 hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity cap- 
 tive, thou hast received gifts for men." Eph. iv. 8, 
 " Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high he 
 led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now 
 that he ascended, what is it but that he also descend- 
 ed first into the lower parts of the earth. He that 
 descended is the same also that ascended up far 
 above all heavens, that he might fill all things." Here 
 
 * Joues on the Trinity. 
 
94 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the apostle informs us, that the person who ascended 
 on high, and led captivity captive, is Christ. The 
 Psalmist informs us, that the person who ascended 
 on high, and led captivity captive, is the Lord who 
 appeared in Sinai. And Moses informs us that the 
 Lord who appeared in Sinai was the God of Israel. 
 This tlierefore was Christ who appeared to Moses, 
 and proclaimed his name to him. 
 
 But this name he declared to be " The Lord, 
 the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffer- 
 ing, and abundant in goodness and truth." It 
 will not be contested that the person who made this 
 proclamation, was good in the original or absolute 
 sense ; Christ is therefore originally and supremely 
 good ; and the Unitarian exposition of the above 
 text is false, because it contradicts the express de- 
 clarations of Scripture. 
 
 If it should here be asked, for what reason Christ 
 put the question, viz. " Why callest thou me good V 
 it is answered ; for the same reason that he asked 
 the Pharisees why David in the Spirit called him 
 Lord, (Matt. xxii. 43.) This ruler, by addressing 
 our Saviour under the name of " Good Master," 
 when the inspired Psalmist had long before declar- 
 ed, tliat " there is none that doeth good, no not one," 
 did in effect allow him to be God ; no mere man 
 since the fall of Adam having any claim to that 
 character.* 
 
 Another passage is the following : Acts x. 42, 
 
 • Jones on the Trinity, D wight's Theology. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 95 
 
 " That it is he which is ordained of God to be the 
 judge of the quick, and the dead." This passage 
 will help us to detect, once for all, that common fal- 
 lacy of our adversaries, in misapplying such words 
 as relate merely to the human nature of Christ to 
 the degi'ading of his supreme essence. Christ is or- 
 dained of God, it is true, and the nature that receives 
 power must be inferior to the nature that confers it. 
 But is his Godhead dierefore ordained ? they tell 
 you it is. But the Scriptures declare, " God (saith 
 St. Paul) hath appointed a day wherein he will 
 judge the world by that man (the original is " in 
 that maji""), whom he hath ordained," Acts xvii. 31. 
 The supreme God who was manifest in the flesh, 
 and in Christ reconciling the world to himself shall 
 remain in the same personal union with him, till he 
 has judged the world, and is ready to deliver up the 
 kingdom. And though our judge shall then even re- 
 tain the character of a man ; yet as God who or- 
 dained him, shall be present with him, in the same 
 person, the act of the last judgment is equally ascrib- 
 ed to both natures. In the text above cited, it is said 
 " He (God) will judge the world," though it imme- 
 diately follows that a man, even the man Christ is 
 ordained to this office. And so we have it again 
 in tlie epistle to the Romans : " We shall all appear 
 before the judgment seat of Christ ; for it is written, 
 As 1 live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to 
 me, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Is. 
 xlv. 23.) We are to give account of ourselves at the 
 judgment seat of Christ ; and how does the apostle 
 
96 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 prove it ? Why because it is written, we shall give 
 account of ourselves to God. But unless Christ, 
 who is a man, be also God, this proof is not to the 
 purpose.* 
 
 The next objected text is Mark xiii. 32, " But of 
 that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
 Father." Here, it is said, Christ confessed himself to 
 be inferior to the Father in knowledge. But it is de- 
 clared of Christ in another place, that he increased 
 in wisdom, Luke ii. 25. Why should it be thought 
 incredible then, that during the whole term of his 
 humiliation, something should still be left, which as 
 man, he did not know. If he is supposed to be igno- 
 rant of this matter as God, how is it that his disci- 
 ples declare that he knew all things. " Now we 
 are sure that thou knowest all things." John xiii. 
 30. If he knew all things^ nothing can be excepted 
 that he did not know. Peter also says, to him, 
 " Lord thou knowest all things.'*'' John xxi. 1 7, an 
 ascription, which, if not true, Christ could not have 
 received without the grossest impiety, and which he 
 did receive, because he did not reject nor reprove it.t 
 And let it be remembered, that it is an admitted 
 fact, and forms a part of our scheme, that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, in his official capacity, delivered his 
 instructions to men, according to a commission which 
 he had received. The idea is expressed in the fol- 
 lowing among other passages : " God, who at sun- 
 
 • Jones on the Trinity. •{• Dwight's Theology. 
 
A PLEA rOK THE TRINITY. 97 
 
 dry times,- and in divers manners, spoke in times 
 past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last 
 days spoken unto us by his Son." " He that sent 
 me is true ; and I speak to the world those things 
 which 1 have heard of him." "For 1 have not 
 spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he 
 gave me a commandment what I should say, and 
 what ] should speak : and I know that his com- 
 mandn^ent is life everlasting ; whatsoever 1 speak, 
 therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so 1 
 speak." (Heb. i. 1 ; John viii. 26, and xii. 45, 50.) 
 Ill this sense we have no objection to saying th.at his 
 knowledge was derived. He receives his ofiicial 
 commission : he is charged with a message he is to 
 deliver. But then, 
 
 2dly. There are other passages which as plainly 
 describe this same person as the Searcher of hearts, 
 and as knowing all things; the government and judg- 
 ment of the world are ascribed to him, to which 
 functions omniscience is requisite ; and all the proofs 
 together of his supreme deity, are evidences of his 
 possessing this attribute. Here,- then, is a solitary 
 text, the only one which Unitarians have'been able 
 to produce as, in direct terms, asserting the limited 
 extent of his knowledge. " He did not know," we 
 are for ever reminded, "the day of judgment." It 
 will surely be acknowledged a singular thing, that 
 this should be the sole limitation. The governor and 
 judge of the world must, of necessity, be possessed 
 of infallible prescience. Without this, the adminis- 
 tration of affairs could not be managed for an hour. 
 9 
 
98 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 How, then, are we to limit this prescience? It seems 
 strange to tliink, that he who is to conduct the go- 
 vernment of mankind, with a view to the final judg- 
 ment, and who is himself, in the close, to occupy the 
 throne as universal Judge, should be in absolute 
 ignorance of the time when the end was to come. 
 He himself describes the solemn transactions of that 
 approaching day, when " the Son of man shall 
 come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him ; 
 when he shall sit on the throne of his glory, and 
 when all nations shall be gathered together before 
 him." He tells us, that "//ze hour is coming, in 
 the which all that are in their graves shall hear his 
 voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, 
 to tlie resurrection of life, and they that have done 
 evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." Yet, 
 according to the Unitarian hypothesis, he did not 
 know any more than man or angel, when these 
 things were to be. Nay, more ; if the final judg- 
 ment be meant in the text in question, then he gives 
 a prophetic view of the general state of the world to 
 the close of its history, yet he knows not at all when 
 that close is to arrive; he describes himself as pre- 
 scribing to his servants their respective charges " to 
 occupy till he should come," and yet not merely 
 leaving them in ignorance of the time of his return, 
 but as ignorant of it himself as they. Such consi- 
 derations render it probable, a priora, that the igno- 
 rance of which he speaks in the text under discus- 
 sion, was not absolute; but that he speaks of himself 
 in his official capacity, and affirms, that the time of 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 99 
 
 the final judgment, the precise period of the duration 
 of the world, did not come within the limits of that 
 commission which he had received of the Father, 
 formed no part of his official instructions, as a mes- 
 senger to mankind. 
 
 3dly. In Acts i. 7, in reply to the question of his 
 apostles, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the 
 kingdom to Israel ?" Jesus says, more generally^ 
 " It is not for you to know the times and the sea- 
 sons, ichidi the Father hath put in his oion poiver."" 
 Are we hence to infer, that our blessed Lord was 
 unacquainted, not merely with the day of judgment, 
 but with the times and seasons in general? This is 
 not pretended, and would be contrary to fact ; the 
 very chapter in which the controverted v^ords occur, 
 demonstrate the contrary. But these " times and 
 seasons" " it was not for them to knoiv :" the " Fa- 
 ther had put them in his own power." Not that 
 he himself was ignorant of them, and on that account 
 unable to give the information desired ; but it formed 
 no part of his instructions at that time to make them 
 known ; they were secret things which belonged to 
 God. May not our Lord, then, in the passage under 
 controversy, be understood as affirming the same 
 thing with respect to the day of judgment, which he 
 here affirms respecting " the times and seasons'"' in 
 general ? 
 
 4thly. It is plain that if angels had known " that 
 day and that hour, it must have been by communica- 
 tion; that Wman had known it, it must have been 
 hy communication. That neither man nor angel 
 
100 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 knew it, is equivalent to — that God iiad not commu- 
 nicated the knowledge of it to them. It is o( know- 
 ledge received by communication that our Saviour 
 speaks ; and as, in the passages before referred to, 
 and m many others, he is represented, and repre- 
 sents himself, as sustaining an official character, and 
 bearing a commission from the Father to men ; the 
 whole of the difficulty consists in considering him in 
 Mark xiii. 32, as speaking of himself in this, his 
 official capacity, and declaring that the time of the 
 judgment was not among the things communicated 
 to him as the commissioned messenger of the Father ; 
 that it was to remain a divine secret.* 
 
 Unitarians also adduce the following text in oppo- 
 sition to the plenary divinity of Christ. John i. 18, 
 " No man hath seen God at any time." But ac- 
 cording to the Arian doctrine, this text must of 
 necessity refer to the Father, because they profess 
 to believe that Christ is God, but in a subordinate 
 sense. And Christ was visible to man. If the text, 
 therefore, refers to the Father, it proves nothing 
 more than what we Jreely admit, viz. no man hath 
 seen God the Father at any time. 
 
 With respect to the Socinians, 1 would request 
 them to compare this passage with John xiv. 8, 9, 
 " Philip saith unto him. Lord show us the P'ather. 
 Jesus saith unto him. Have 1 been so long with you, 
 and hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath 
 
 * " Unitai-ianism Incapable of vindication." p. 272 — 275. By 
 Dr. ^^'al•dla\v. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 101 
 
 seen me, hath seen the Father." Which words 
 signify, that he who hath seen all that was visible of 
 Christ, hath seen the person to whom was joined 
 that invisible and divine nature, which the Scripture 
 has called by the name of the Father. And to show 
 that Christ (though God manifest in the flesh) is yet 
 no other than the same invisible God, whom no man 
 hath seen or can see, and live ; we are told that 
 when he shall appear (glorified with no secondary 
 divinity but with the Father's own self) we shall be 
 like him, (fashioned like unto his own glorious body, 
 Phil. iii. 21,) for we shall see him as he is; which no 
 man hath ever yet done. 
 
 The next objected passage is 1 Cor. xi. 3, " The 
 head of Christ is God." The name Christ does 
 here stand, as in some other places, for the man 
 Christ, otherwise it will follow, that as Christ is 
 "Overall, God blessed forever," Rom. ix. 5 ; John 
 i. 1 ; Isaiah ix. 6 ; therefore God is head of himself, 
 which is a contradiction. Or that one God is the 
 head of another God, which is also a contradiction. 
 
 Another passage is. Matt, xxiii. 9, " Call no man 
 your father upon earth, for one is your Fatiier which 
 is in heaven." It is alleged that this text proves 
 Christ to be inferior to the Fatlier, because Christ 
 declares, that he is not the Father of his creatures, 
 which he would not have done was he true and 
 perfect God. Let us see if this inference be correct. 
 To ascertain this, we will compare it with Matt. v. 
 10, and John iii. 13, "Neither be ye called INIasters, 
 for one is your Master, even Christ," " which is in 
 9* 
 
103 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITY, 
 
 heaven." As in this instance the phrase, " one 
 Master," cannot be meant to exclude the Father, 
 neither is it reasonable to suppose that the phrase 
 " one is your Father," is meant to exclude the per- 
 son of Christ. And if the reason of the thing 
 leaches us that it cannot, so the Scripture assures 
 us in fact, that it does not ; the title of Father being 
 also ascribed to the second person of the trinity. 
 For Christ, the Alpha and the Omega, says of him- 
 self, " He that overcometh shall inherit all things, 
 and 1 will be his God and he shall be my son." 
 Isaiah calls him the " Everlasting Father." And 
 again, it is written, " They are the children of God, 
 being children of the resurrection." Luke xx. 36. 
 But says Christ, " I am the resurrection." John xi- 
 23. Therefore he is God, and hath us for his chil- 
 dren. If this be the case, the word Father cannot 
 always be the ^lame that distinguishes God the 
 Father, from another person of God ; but is often to 
 be understood as a term of relation between God 
 and man; or as a learned writer has well expressed 
 it,- "A word not intended for God the Father only, 
 the first person of the trinity, but as it is referred to 
 the creature, made and conserved by God, in whicb 
 sense it appertains to the whole trinity.* 
 
 The next passage is 1 Cor. viii. 6, "To us there 
 is but one God the Father." Unitarians quote 
 this little bit of the text, and satisfy th(miselves with 
 saying, "No words can be more explicit." Let us 
 
 * See Jones on the Trinitv. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 103 
 
 take the words in their connexion, and then consi- 
 der what aspect they bear towards the Unitarian 
 system. " As concerning, therefore, the eating of 
 those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, 
 we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and 
 that there is no other God but one. For though 
 there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or 
 in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) 
 yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom 
 are all things, and we in him : and one Lord Jesus 
 Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him :" 
 verses 4 — 6. 
 
 1 cannot content myself with standing merely 
 on the defensive with regard to this passage ; for I am 
 satisfied that it not only does not oppose the deity of 
 Christ, but is a strong testimony in its favour, that the 
 thrust aimed with this weapon may notonly be|j«r- 
 ried, but the weapon itself wrested from the hand of 
 the adversary, and its point fairly turned against 
 himself. To show this, let the following series of 
 observations be attended to. 
 
 1. The subject of the apostle's reasoning is, the 
 lawfulness of eating meats that had been offered in 
 sacrifice to idols. And on this subject he first of all 
 admits, in ver. 4, the truth of what the abettors of 
 the practice were disposed to urge in support of its 
 lawfulness, that "an idol is nothing in the world, 
 and that there is no other God but one.''"' 
 
 2. He goes on in ver. 5, to state this last proposi- 
 tion more at large. It is still the proposition " that 
 there is no other God hut one,^'' that he illustrates and 
 
104 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 affirms. In ver. 4. lie announces it in general terms ; 
 and then in verses 5 and 6, proceeds to establish it. 
 How then does he do this ? 
 
 3. When he says, in verse 5, — "though there be 
 that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, 
 as there be gods many and lords many," it is obvious, 
 that the gods many and lords many^ are both in- 
 cluded in the more general and comprehensive 
 phrase, those " called gods, whether in heaven or in 
 earth." The same beings, or supposed beings, which 
 he first calls by the single appellation " gods,'' he 
 distributes under the two appellations of gods and 
 lords. The lords many, then, belonged to the num- 
 ber of the heathen deities, as well as the gods many. 
 He uses both appellations, that he may include them 
 all; for by these two appellations the Jews were 
 accustomed, in general, to denominate the divinities 
 of the Gentile nations. 
 
 4. If this be the case, then, unless we would de- 
 prive the apostle's argument of all consistency, we 
 must not consider him as excluding from the claims 
 and honours of Deity " the one Lord Jesus Christ.''' 
 The point to be proved was not, whether there were 
 or were not various beings, of various power in 
 subordination to God ; but whether there were any 
 more than one only, that should receive divine 
 homage and worship. He affirms that there is 07ie 
 only. in\t how does he affirm this ? By opposing to 
 the " gods many, and lords many," of the Gentiles, 
 that is, as we have seen, to the deities of the Gen- 
 tiles, to tliose " called gods, whether in heaven or in 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 105 
 
 earth," — by opposing to these, not " one God and 
 Father" only, but " one God and Father, and one 
 Lord Jesus Christ." The proposition, therefore, 
 " there is no other God but one," (which is the pro- 
 position to be estabhshed,) must be considered as 
 identified in the reasoning, not with the simple pro- 
 position, "to us there is but one God the Father," 
 but with the complex proposition, " to us there is 
 one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." 
 The " one Lord Jesus Christ," is as directly opposed 
 to the idol deities of the heathen, as the "one God 
 the Father." 
 
 5. When the apostle calls the Father, God, and 
 Jesus Christ, Lord, he makes it, at the same instant, 
 that he did not mean to be understood, as if either 
 Christ was not God, or the Father not Lord. For 
 in the very same exclusive terms in which he af- 
 fii-ms there is " one Wad the Father,'' he also affirms, 
 there is " one Lord Jesus Christ.'''' The argument 
 therefore, w^hich would exclude Jesus Christ from 
 Deity, would equally exclude the Father from Lord- 
 ship, or dominion. It would subject mankind, or 
 Christians rather, to Jesus Christ alone, to the entire 
 exclusion of the Father. There is no evading this 
 consequence. It is vain to say, that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord in an inferior sense. This will not do. The 
 affirmation that there is " one Lord Jesus Christ,''' is 
 just as explicit as that there " is one God the Father :" 
 and, if it is alleged that the Father is the supreme 
 Lord, and Jesus Christ Lord hij delegation, then it 
 is not true that to us there is but Ox\e Lord. 
 
106 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 6. This view is confirmed by the language here 
 used respecting the " one Lord Jesus Christ." — " To 
 us there is but one God the Father, of whom are 
 all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 b?/ whom are all things, and we bi/ him ;" all things 
 which are of the Father are, in their utmost latitude, 
 here affirmed to be bi/ the Lord Jesus Clirist; and 
 that in the very same terms in which, elsewhere, all 
 things are said to be by the Father. Rom. xi. 36. 
 Heb. ii. 10, &c.* 
 
 The next text is. Acts xiv. 29, 30, " And now 
 Lord — grant — that signs and wonders may be done 
 by the name of thy holy child Jesus." From this 
 it seems, that signs and wonders were not to be 
 wrought by Jesus Christ as the author of them, but 
 by a higher power of the Lord, put into action by 
 the name, merits, or intercession of the holy child 
 Jesus. Yet St. Peter makes thi^ same Jesus, though 
 in heaven, the immediate author of the signs and 
 wonders wrought by his disciples upon earth. 
 " Eneas (says he) Jesus Christ maketh thee whole," 
 Acts ix. 34. 
 
 The next objected passage is Matt. xx. 23, " To 
 sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to 
 give, but it shall be given to them for u hom it is 
 prepared of my Father." 
 
 Yet our blessed Saviour has elsewhere promised 
 to bestow this reward in his own right. Rev. iii. 21, 
 " To him that overcometh will 1 grant to sit with 
 
 * Dr. AVurdluw, 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 107 
 
 me in my throne." This is sufficient to preserve the 
 text from any heretical use that may have been 
 made of it. But we are to understand the above 
 objected passage to mean, that he could not give 
 this reward to them in the sense in which they asked 
 it, since he was no temporal prince, nor was his king- 
 dom of this world ; neither had he any such external 
 favours or honours. And as to the true and spiri- 
 tual sense of such a phrase, it was not a point to fix 
 now by him, as man, and according to his own will, 
 as who should reign with him, and enjoy all the 
 glories and happiness of the world to come. And 
 though as mediator, all this glory was given him, and 
 he had it in his hands to give to others, yet to " none 
 but those," says he, " for whom it is prepared of my 
 Fatlier."* 
 
 The next text to be adduced is Acts x. 40, " Him 
 God raised up, and showed him openly to us, who 
 did eat, and drink with him after he rose from the 
 dead." Compare this with John xxi. 1. "After these 
 things Jesus showed himself again to his disci- 
 ples at the sea of Tiberius, and on this wise showed 
 HE himself." The former text takes something 
 from Christ as a man, in which capacity he was at 
 the disposal of his Father. The latter restores it to 
 him again as God, under which character he is at 
 his own disposal. The same is to be said of the 
 following texts. 
 
 John iii. 16, "God so loved the world that he 
 gave his only begotten Son," compared with Eph. 
 
 * Jones on the Trinity, Ridgley's Divinity. 
 
108 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 V. 28, " Christ also loved the church, and gave him- 
 self for it." 
 
 Likewise Eph. vi. 2G, " Forgiving one another, 
 even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven yon," 
 compared with Colos. iii. 13, "Forgiving one another, 
 even as Ciirist forgave you."* 
 
 In Epii. iv. 4-6, the apostle, in enumerating 
 the bonds of Christian unity, says, among other 
 things, — " there is one Lord,'''' and ".07ze God and 
 Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and 
 in you all." 
 
 This passage " is held (to use their own words) 
 deservedly dear" by Unitarians : because it excludes 
 the " one Lord" from the claims of Deity. But, 
 
 1 . The same argument which would exclude the 
 Saviour, — the " one Lord,'''' from the claims of Deity, 
 would equally exclude the " one Father,'''' from the 
 claims of Lordship or dominion. 
 
 2. The same things that are here said of the Fa- 
 ther are elsewhere said of the Son. See John iii. 31. 
 Rom. ix. 5, and x. 12. Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3, &c.t 
 
 It is said by Unitarians that Christ declares him- 
 self to be inferior to the Father in express terms; 
 " My Father is greater than 1," and " My Father is 
 greater than all." 
 
 These declarations are perfectly consistent with 
 the doctrine of the trinity in two ways : 
 
 First, as Christ was a man ; secondly, as in the 
 
 * Jones on the Trinity. 
 
 t " Uiiitarianism Incapable of Vindication," p. 267, by Dr. 
 Wardlaw. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 109 
 
 character of mediator he acted under a commission 
 from the Father. He who acts under a commission 
 from another is, while thus acting, inferior to him 
 from whom he received tlie commission.* 
 
 • Would it be any thing short of blasphemy, in any created 
 being-, however exalted, (much less in a man, as Socinians hold 
 Christ to be,) to say, when speaking of the Deity, "My Father 
 is greater than I ;" or, in other words, " God is a greater being 
 than I ?" I leave the Unitarians to answer this question. 
 
 10 
 
( no ) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE OPINIONS WHICH THE ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH HELD 
 RESPECTING THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Before I proceed to prove that the primitive 
 Christian church held the deity of Jesus Christ, 1 
 will make a few observations relative to the senti- 
 ments which the ancient Jewish church held respect- 
 ing tlie Messiah. The bearing which this has upon 
 the subject now in debate, will be made manifest as 
 we proceed. 
 
 That the ancient Jewish church believed in a 
 Messiah to come, is a fact which no one will be dis- 
 posed to deny. And that this belief of theirs was in 
 accordance with the Scriptures, every one will 
 admit. 
 
 The question then is, whether they, in general, 
 had correct conceptions of the character of this per- 
 sonage. 
 
 The supposition that they had not, is incredible. 
 For, 
 
 1. In their Scriptures his character was plainly 
 delineated. It was predicted that the Messiah should 
 come into the world for the redemption of man. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. Ill 
 
 Gen. iil. 15 :* Isa. ix. 6, 7. He was also to appear 
 before the destruction of the second temple. Hag- 
 gai ii. 7. 
 
 He was to appear in the world before the domi- 
 nion of the Jews should be taken away. Gen. 
 xlix. 10. 
 
 It was to be at a time of general peace that he 
 should appear. Haggai ii. 6, 7, 9; and when there 
 was a general expectation of him. Haggai ii. 7 — 9. 
 
 He was to be one who had been the fellow, the 
 equal, and the companion of Jehovah. Zech. xiii. 
 7. And to be the Son of God. Ps. ii. 12 ; Prov. xxx. 
 4; Hosea xi. 1. And likewise the Son of man. 
 Dan. vii. 13. 
 
 He was not to be born according to the ordinary 
 course of nature, but to descend from a pure virgin. 
 Gen. iii. 15 ; Isa. vii. 14 ; Jer. xxxi. 22. 
 
 He was to descend from Abraham, Isaac, not 
 Ishmael, and Jacob, not Esau, and of none other of 
 Jacob's children, than Judah. Gen. xxi. 1 — 12; 
 Gen. xxii. 16 — 21 ; Gen. xxv. 24 — 34; Gen. xxvii. 
 27—28, and xxviii. 13, 14, with Gen. xlix. 8—12. 
 He was also to spring from Jesse, Isa. xi. 1. 
 
 To be born in a poor and mean condition, when 
 the family should be reduced to a very poor and low 
 estate. ]sa. liii. 2. 
 
 * " It is observable that not only the generality of the Chris- 
 tian writers, but even the ancient Jews, both the Jerusalem Tar- 
 gum, and that of Jonathan, besides many otlier famous rabbies, 
 apply this passage (Gen. iii. 15,) to the times and person of the 
 Messiah." Note by G. E-, in Edwards on Redemj)tlon, p. 74. 
 
112 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITV. 
 
 He was to have a messenger going before him, 
 Mai. iii. 1 ; who was to be either Ehjah, or one in 
 the spirit of Elijah, who was to preach in the wil- 
 derness. Mai. iv. 5, 6 ; Isa. xl. 3 — 5. 
 
 To be born at Bethlehem, Micah v. 2. To go 
 down into Egypt, Hosea xi. 1. To be a preacher of 
 the law, Ps. xi. 9, 10. To preach in Gallilee, Isa. 
 ix. 12. He was to sustain the office of a prophet 
 when he came to redeem mankind. Deut. xviii. 
 15, 18. 
 
 To sustain the office of a priest. Zech. vi. 1 3 ; 
 though not of the tribe of Levi, or after the order of 
 Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedek. Gen. 
 xiv. 1 8 ; Ps. xc. 4. To sustain the office of a king, 
 when he took upon him human nature. Ps. ii. G ; 
 Zech. vi. 13, and ix. 9. 
 
 His kingdom to be everlasting and universal. 
 Dan. vii. 27. He was to be a righteous king and 
 emphatically the Prince of Peace. Is. xxxii. 1 ; Ps. 
 xlv. 1 — 7 ; Ixii. 1 — 19 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Zech. ix. 9 ; 
 Is. ix. 6, and the Sun of Righteousness, INIal. iv. 2, 
 
 To be called Emanuel. Is. vii. 14 ; viii. 8. 
 
 To be a Shepherd, and lay down his life for his 
 sheep. Zech. xiii. 7 ; Is. xl. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24. 
 
 His name was to be Jehovah our Righteousness. 
 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. To be of a meek and lowly dispo- 
 sition. Zech. ix. 9. 
 
 To be peculiarly kind and affectionate to )'oung, 
 distressed, and tender-spirited persons. Is. xl. 11; 
 Iv. 1—3; Ixi. 1—3. 
 
 To preach the gospel to the poor. Is. Ixi. 1. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 113 
 
 To be despised and rejected of men, a man of sor- 
 rows and acquainted with grief. Is. liii. 
 
 To be seen riding into Jerusalem, sitting upon a 
 young ass, as a token of humility. Zech. ix. 9. 
 
 To be betrayed into his enemies' hands by the 
 treachery of an intimate friend, Ps. xli. 9, and Ps. 
 Iv. 12, 13; and to be sold for thirty pieces of silver, 
 Zech. xi. 12; to be condemned in judgment, and 
 suffer under colour of justice. Is. Ixix. 8, 9 ; his fol- 
 lowers were all to forsake him in the time of his 
 greatest need. Zech. xiii. 7 ; Is. Ixiii. 5. 
 
 To be scourged, smitten, and spit upon, Is. i. 6 ; 
 and lii. 14; Micah v. 1 ; to be wounded in his 
 hands, Zech. xiii. 6 ; and so marred and disfigured 
 by ill treatment that his friends should scarce know 
 him. Is. lii. 14; to be oppressed and afflicted, and 
 yet not open his mouth in complaint. Is. liii. 7. 
 
 To be put to death at the end of 490 years from 
 the time a commandment should go forth to restore 
 Jerusalem, Dan. ii. 24. To be presented by his 
 enemies with gall and vinegar during his sufferings, 
 Ps. Ixix. 21 ; and his hands and feet to be pierced, 
 Ps. xxii. 16 ; and side, Zech. xii. 10 ; and to be cut 
 off not for himself, Dan. ix. 26 ; Is. liii. 8. These 
 passages I have selected out of a large number of 
 a similar import. 
 
 We see, then, from the above passages, that the 
 
 Jewish church possessed ample means of becoming 
 
 well acquainted with the character of their expected 
 
 Messiah. And what is more to our purpose is, 
 
 10* 
 
114 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 that the ancient Jews understood most of the above 
 passages to be prophecies of the Messiah. 
 
 2. To suppose that the Jewish church had not 
 correct ideas of the character of the promised Mes- 
 siah, is equivalent to supposing that the Scriptures 
 which God gave to his people for the purpose of 
 benefiting them, failed of the desired effect, as they 
 did not understand them. 
 
 3. It is also equivalent to supposing that the pro- 
 mises of the Messiah, though given for the comfort 
 of God's people, were useless. 
 
 4. To suppose that the Jewish church, with 
 all the forementioned evidence, and much more 
 found in the Old Testament, did not, or could not 
 understand what would be the character of the 
 Messiah, would be almost as preposterous as to 
 suppose the Christian church knows nothing of the 
 character of Christ, from what is recorded in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 But 1 presume it is needless to spend more time 
 and paper in proving what, perhaps, no one will 
 deny. 
 
 It being admitted, then, that the Jewish church 
 had correct conceptions of the character of the pro- 
 mised Messiah, the offices he was to sustain, his 
 sufferings, death, &lc., we will next examine the 
 opinions which they held respecting this personage.* 
 
 ♦ In their writing's, the ancient Jews frequently style him the 
 Redeemer, the Brancli, and the Son of man. Vid. the Book of 
 Enoch, and Dr. Allix's " Jewish Church against the Unitarians." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 115 
 
 There was without doubt some diversity of sen- 
 timent on this subject among them : but the opinions 
 concerning him which were most generally re- 
 ceived, 1 take it for granted, will be found among 
 their most distinguished paraphrasts and commen- 
 tators, whose testimony I shall adduce on this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 1. They held Messiah to be the Son of God. 
 They held that Ps. ii. relates to him. This was not 
 questioned in St. PauPs time. Otherwise he could 
 not have applied it to Christ as he does, in Acts xiii. 
 33. The Talmudical writers also agree that it re- 
 lates to the Messiah. In verse 12, of this Psalm 
 Messiah is spoken of as the Son. 
 
 The ancient Jews held that the title of Son was 
 given to Messiah in Ps. Ixxii. 1 7. This is acknow- 
 ledged by Raschi, who against their unanimous con- 
 sent thinks fit to apply it to Solomon. 
 
 The Hebrew word in this Psalm, is Innon, being 
 formed from Nin, which signifies a Son. Hence it 
 is that the Jews make Innon one of the titles of 
 the Messiah. Fid. Midrash Tillim, on Ps. xciii. and 
 the Talmud Sanhedrim^ and in Kahbotli. 
 
 Isa. ix. 6, 7, " Unto us a Son is given." This, 
 they say, refers to the Messiah. In Christ's time 
 the Sanhedrim called the Messiah the Son of God. 
 Matt. xxvi. 63. 
 
 The old Jews acknowledged that the Word 
 (Xoyo?) Wisdom, and Shekinah, were the same as 
 Messiah,— that each of these names was properly 
 his own title. So that when we find them speaking 
 
116 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 of the Word, or Wisdom, or Shekinah as the Son 
 of God, we understand the same person which is 
 called Messiah to be spoken of. The truth of this 
 will appear from the following : 
 
 1. They owned that the Logos (X070?) which 
 guided the Israelites in the wilderness was their 
 shepherd. From this they concluded that Ps. xxiii. 
 " The Lord is my shepherd," is to be understood of 
 the Messiah. 
 
 2. But nothing is more common among the Jewish 
 writers (says Dr. Allix in his work entitled " Judg- 
 ment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians," 
 in which admirable treatise these positions are clear- 
 ly established) nothing is more common than, 1st, to 
 maintain that the Shekinah, the Wisdom, and the 
 Logos (Xoyoj) are the same thing. 2dly. To refer to 
 the Messiah, as being the same with the Shekinah, 
 those very places which are to be understood of the 
 Shekinah, and the Shekinah, those places which are 
 to be understood of the Messiah. 
 
 It will be seen by looking upon the places of the 
 prophets, which are constantly spoken of Messiah, 
 that the best authors of the synagogue refer them to 
 the Shekinah ; so that it is clear that they had the 
 same idea of the Shekinah and of the Messiah, and 
 must have looked upon the Messiali as he that must 
 have been the proper Son of God. And nothing is 
 more evident, than that the Jews wlio took the JVis- 
 dom to be the Logos, and the proper Son of God, 
 and look upon the Shekinah or Logos as being the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 117 
 
 Messiah, must have looked upon the Messiah as the 
 proper Son of God. 
 
 3. In Prov. viii. 22-25, Wisdom (which they un- 
 derstand to be the same as the Xoyoj or Messiah) is 
 spoken of as a Son in the bosom of her Father. Upon 
 which Philo being asked the question, " Why is 
 Wisdom here spoken of in the feminine," answered, 
 " That it is to preserve God in the character of a 
 Father," from whom he thought the Logos drew his 
 nature, as being, as he elsewhere styled him, " the 
 eternal Son of the everlasting Father." Philo like- 
 wise calls the Wisdom in this passage the Logos. 
 
 Philo says that the Word was the first born, and 
 Creator of the world. 
 
 But so numerous are the testimonies that the 
 Jewish church styled the Logos, Shekinah and Wis- 
 dom (being the same as Messiah) the Son of God, 
 that 1 deem it necessary to add no more, as 1 think 
 it will not be denied. Though as the following is 
 rather a remarkable one, 1 will add it in conclusion. 
 
 The Targum of Jerusalem says, on Gen. iii. 22, 
 "The Word of Jehovah said, here Adam, whom 
 I created, is the only begotton son in the world, 
 and 1 am the only begotten Son in the high heaven."* 
 
 2. He is called by the ancient Jews the Re- 
 deemer. Of this take an example from Philo : he 
 
 • I have introduced the above proofs that the Jewish church 
 held Messiah to be the Son of God, not so much for the purpose 
 of proving liis exalted character in their estimation, as to show 
 how near they viewed the Messiah as Christians do Clmst. 
 
118 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 says, " the Word is mediator between God and 
 man," and further, " he makes atonement for men." 
 
 3. They owned that tlie Word was God, and 
 that he had made the world. 
 
 Philo describes him under the name of the true 
 God, and Creator of the world. 
 
 The Targum plainly owns on Ps. xlv. 6, " Thy 
 throne, O God," &c., and verse 7, that the Messiah 
 is God. 
 
 They believed Isaiah ix. 6, in which the person 
 spoken of is called " the mighty God," to be a pro- 
 phecy of Messiah. Jonathan in particular was of 
 this opinion in his paraphrase on this text. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah has these words, Is., xxxv. 4, 
 5, 6, " Behold your God will come — and save you." 
 According to the testimony of Sol Jarchi, and D. 
 Kimchi, the ancient Jews understood these words 
 of the Messiah. 
 
 In Jesus Chrisfs time they confessed Ps. ex. to 
 belong to Messiah. Verse 1 , " The Lord said unto 
 my Lord," &c. Christ's argument necessarily sup- 
 poses it. Matt. xxii. 44. So it was understood by 
 Midrash Tehillim, and R. Saadia Gaon, on Dan. 
 vii. 13. 
 
 They admit also that Micah v. 2, refers to him. 
 
 4. The ancient Jewish church held that the Mes- 
 siah promised in their Scriptures was Jehovah. 
 
 Isaiah viii. 13, 14, " Sanctify Jehovah of hosts." 
 This passage the ancient Jews interpret of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Jeremiah xxiii. 6, saith very expressly that the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 119 
 
 Messiah shall be called Jehovah. And he repeats 
 the same, chap, xxxiii. 15, 16. R. David Kimchi 
 owns it, and quotes the authority of two eminent 
 Rabbins for it, viz. R. Aba Bar Laana, and R. Levi 
 in Eccha Rabati. 
 
 The prophecies which speak of Jehovah as king 
 and bridegroom of his church, are constantly inter- 
 preted of the Messiah. For example, Hosea ii. 1 9, 
 20, the Jews generally understood of the Messiah. 
 It is the judgment of R. Menachem in Genes, fol. 
 15, col. 1, where he reflects on Isaiah Ixii. 3. 
 
 We have a strong proof that the Messiah should 
 be Jehovah in Zech. xii. 10, which the Targum 
 interprets of the Messiah. Likewise Mai. iii. 1. 
 " Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to 
 his temple," they interpreted of the Messiah. 
 
 The Jehovah of hosts, which was seen by Isaiah 
 chap, vi., the ancient Jews affirmed to be the Word. 
 Verse 8, " 1 heard the voice of Jehovah saying. 
 Whom shall I send," &,c., is thus rendered by the 
 Targum, " 1 heard the voice of the Word of the 
 Lord, saying," &c. 
 
 The ancient Jewish church believed, then, that 
 Messiah was properly styled Jehovah. On this, I 
 would remark, 1st, That in Philo's time, the syna- 
 gogue held that the name Jehovah, expressed the 
 essence of God ;" and 2d, That the name Jehovah 
 was the proper name of God, the name of the first 
 cause, and consequently incommunicable to any 
 creature, which is confessed by Manassah Ben 
 Israel, and Maimonides, who, treating upon the 
 
120 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 different names and attributes of God, speaks as' 
 follows : " All the names of the Most High which 
 are found in the books {L e. of the Bible) are derived 
 from his actions ; and that which has no derivation 
 in it, is only one, i. e. the Tetragrammaton (Je- 
 hovah) which is appropriated to the Most High onlyi 
 therefore it is called a declared name, which signi- 
 fieth the very essence of the Most High, with clear 
 demonstration in which there is no equal nor part- 
 ner with him. But the rest of his names as Judge, 
 Mighty, Righteous, Merciful, God, &c., are all 
 names which declare the effect and derivation, &,c. 
 But the Tetragrammaton name is unknown as 
 yet, as to its certain derivation, and therefore it is 
 attributed to him only.''''* This extract contains the 
 general sense of the synagogue in all ages. 
 
 The ancient Jews (as the modern) believed in 
 the unity of God. Of this no one can doubt. 
 Whether they also believed in a plurality in the 
 divine essence is not hard to determine, when we 
 reflect that they believed that Jehovah was the name 
 which was expressive of the divine essence, and that 
 this name was communicable to no creature what- 
 ever. Yet they believed that in addition to the Fa- 
 ther, this name properly belonged to the Messiah, 
 or Son. 
 
 But 1 pass on to observe, 
 
 * Judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians. And 
 " Whole Truth," p. 24, by R. Jucluh Morris. See also Jamison's 
 Vindication, vol. I. pp. 78 — 98. Edinburgh Edition. And tlie 
 Episcopal Theological Magazine, vol. I. pp. 319 — 323. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 121 
 
 5. That the ancient Jews worshipped the Mes- 
 siah. Jt is a subject upon which Christians and 
 Jews are all agreed, that there is but one God, and 
 that he alone is to be worshipped. The Jews and 
 ancient Christians did agree, that neither angels nor 
 any created being ivhatever is to be worshipped. 
 From which it follows, that if the Jews acknow- 
 ledged that the Messiah ought to be worshipped, 
 and if they worshipped him, they must have ac- 
 knowledged him to be God, et vice versa. 
 
 Now there are positive orders of God to worship 
 the Messiah : as Ps. ii. 1 2. The Son spoken of in this 
 place is the Messiah, as is granted by the ancient 
 synagogue ; as we see in Ecclesiasticus : " 1 called 
 upon the Lord, the Father of my Lord." And Te- 
 hillim Rabbi, with many others, use this place of 
 Ps. ii. to the Messiah. So the Breshit Rabba in Gen. 
 xlix ; so the Talmud in Succa, chap. 5 ; Saadia in 
 Dan. vii. 1 3, with the ancient witness R. Salom Jar- 
 chi in his comment. 
 
 A positive order for the worship of the Messiah is 
 given in Ps. xlv. 1 1 , ""He is the Lord, worship him." 
 All the Jewish interpreters, and the Targum, ac- 
 knowledge this Psalm to be referred to the Messiah. 
 
 In Ps. Ixxii. 11, it is said, " they shall fall down 
 and worship him." ]t is not denied by any one that 
 this Psalm relates to the Messiah. 
 
 The Jews understood it of the Messiah whom they 
 
 look upon as the Redeemer, to whom all the peo'ple 
 
 are to make their confession from their heart. As 
 
 it is said in Breshit Rabba upon Gen. xli. 44, where 
 
 11 
 
122 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 they refer these words to the Messiah, Is. xlv. 23. 
 The same may be seen in Blidr. Tekin on Ps. ii. 2, 
 in these words, " when they have seen his great tri- 
 bulation they shall come and worship the King 
 Messiah, as it is said Is. xlv. 23.* 
 
 By the above testimony it is demonstrated that 
 the ancient church of God believed in the supreme 
 divinity of the Messiah ; and that this same church 
 believed that the revelation given them from heaven 
 clearly made known this fact : that is, that the 
 Messiah was true and perfect God: that the 
 person in whom the prophecies would be fulfilled, 
 was no other than the true God. This is the testi- 
 mony of the ancient church k}F God. But the Ncio 
 Testament declares that Jesus Christ is the Messiah 
 — the personage in lohom all these prophecies are ful- 
 filled. Then he, of whom the Jewish church had 
 these exalted sentiments, is declared by the New 
 Testament to be Jesus Christ. 
 
 But as some Socinians, (being pinched 1 presume 
 with the above arguments,) have denied that Jesus 
 was the Messiah prophesied of in the Old Testa- 
 ment, perhaps it would be proper in this place to 
 subjoin a few evidences of his Messiahship. 
 
 The bare statement of the prophecies at the com- 
 mencement of this chapter, is sufficient, one would 
 think, to convince any one who believes the New 
 Testament, that Jesus is the Messiah. But 1 ob- 
 serve, 
 
 • Judgment of the Jewish church aguinst the Unitamns. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 123 
 
 1. That the time mentioned in the Old Testa- 
 ment for the coming of the Messiah, has expired. 
 Jacob prophesied that " the sceptre should not de- 
 part from Judah till Shiloh {i. e. Messiah) be 
 come;" but the sceptre has long since departed. 
 Daniel's seventy weeks (chap. ix. 24,) being a day 
 for a year, at the end of which he prophesied that 
 the Messiah would be cut off, are long since elapsed. 
 The Messiah, therefore, has either come, or the pro- 
 phecies are false. 
 
 2. That Jesus is the true Messiah, and actually 
 come in the flesh, is evident, if we consider that 
 whenever he should come, the Scriptures and cere- 
 monies of the Mosiac law were to be suspended by 
 him, Ps. xl. 6-8 ; 1 Sam. xv. 22 ; Dan. ix. 27 ; Jer. 
 xxxi. 31-34 ; Heb. viii. 13. They virtually ceased 
 when Jesus offered himself a sacrifice, and in a few 
 years they actually ceased. A few of the ancient 
 ceremonies are indeed adhered to, but as one of the 
 Jewish waiters has acknowledged, "the sacrifices of 
 the Holy Temple have ceased." 
 
 It is also suggested in the Scriptures that the great 
 body of sacred prophecy should be accomplished in 
 him, Gen. iii. 16, and xxii. 18; Is. xlix. 10, and 
 liii. 1. 
 
 3. The place where Messiah should be born, and 
 where he should principally impart his doctrine is 
 determined, Micah v. 2 ; Is. ix. 2, and was literally 
 fulfilled in Jesus. 
 
 4. The house or family from whom he should 
 descend is clearly ascertained ; of the lineage of 
 
124 A FLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 David. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, 
 whatever varieties there are between them, agree in 
 tracing his pedigree to David. 
 
 The kind of miracles that Messiah should perform 
 is specified ; Is. xxxv. 5, 6. Jesus accordingly per- 
 formed the miracles there predicted, his enemies 
 being judges. 
 
 5. It was prophesied that he should as a King be 
 distinguished by his lowliness : entering Jerusalem, 
 not in a chariot of state, but in a much humbler 
 style -, Zech. ix. 9 ; this was really the case, Matt. 
 xxi. 6. 
 
 6. It was predicted that he should suffer and die 
 by the hands of wicked men. Is. xlix. 7, and liii. 9 ; 
 Dan. ix. 26. Nothing could be a more striking 
 fulfilment of prophecy than the treatment the Mes- 
 siah met with in almost every particular circum- 
 stance. 
 
 7. It was foretold that he should rise from the 
 dead; Is. liii. 11 ; Ps. Ixviii. 18, and xvi. 10. The 
 resurrection of Christ is proved by indubitable evi- 
 dence. 
 
 8. It was foretold that the great body of the Jew- 
 ish nation would not believe in him, and that he 
 would set up his kingdom among the Gentiles, Is. 
 liii. 1, and xlix. 4-6, and vi. 9-12. Never was a 
 prophecy more completely fulfilled than this, as facts 
 evidently prove.* 
 
 * For particulars see Fuller's "Jesus the true Messiah." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 125 
 
 Lastly, to put the matter beyond controversy of 
 Jesus being the Messiah, we will produce his own 
 express declaration, John iv. 25, 26, " The woman 
 saith unto him, 1 know that Messias cometh, which 
 is called Christ ; when he is come he will tell us all 
 things. Jesus saith unto her^ I that speak unto 
 
 THEE AM HE." 
 
 U 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES, AND 
 IMMEDIATELY AFTER, HELD THE DOCTRINE OF THE SU- 
 PREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 In support of this position we will first produce 
 their own testimony. 
 
 We will begin with that of Barnabas, who is 
 sometimes called the apostle. He was the com- 
 panion of St. Paul in some of his journeys and dan- 
 gers, and wrote soon after Titus destroyed Jerusalem. 
 In the 5th section of his catholic epistle he says, 
 "The Lord was content to suffer for our sins, al- 
 though he be the Lord of the whole earthy to whom 
 God said, before the beginning of the world, Let us 
 make man after our own image and likeness.'" And 
 in the 7th section he says, " If, therefore, the Son of 
 God, WHO IS Lord of all, and shall come to judge 
 both the quick and the dead, hath suffered, that by 
 his stripes we might live, let us believe that the Son 
 of God could not have suflered but for us." 
 
 The shepherd of Hermes, who lived cotemporary 
 with Barnabas, says, " The Son of God is more an- 
 cient than any creature : so that he was present with 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. J 27 
 
 his Father at the creation of all things." And again, 
 '•^ Every creature is supported by the Son of God." 
 
 Clemens Romanus, a companion of the apostles, 
 who is also mentioned in the New Testament, and 
 who wrote towards the close of the first century, 
 speaks as follows : " God is good to all, especially to 
 those who flee to his mercy through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, TO WHOM be glory and majesty for 
 
 EVER AND EVER." 
 
 The following passages occur in the epistles of 
 Ignatius, a disciple of St. John, and who suffered 
 martyrdom under the emperor Trajan, A. D. 107. 
 " Ignatius to the church which is at Ephesus in Asia, 
 most deservedly happy, being blessed through the 
 greatness and goodness of God the Father, and pre- 
 destinated before the world began, being united and 
 chosen through his true passion, according to the 
 will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our God, 
 all happiness by Jesus Christ and his undefiled 
 grace." " There is one Physician, both fleshly and 
 spiritual, God incarnate, bothof Mary andof God, 
 even Jesus Christ our Lord." And again, " Igno- 
 rance is taken away, and the old kingdom abolished, 
 God himself appearing in the form of a man." 
 And, " Permit me to imitate the passion of Christ 
 MY God." In the close of his epistle to Polycarp, 
 he says, " I wish you all happiness in Jesus Christ 
 OUR God. 
 
 Polycarp, another of St. John's disciples, flourish- 
 ed about the commencement of the second century, 
 and suffered martyrdom under the emperor Marcus 
 
128 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Antoninus, in an epistle to the Philippians speaks 
 thus : " Mercy and peace from God Almighty and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour be multiplied — 
 every living creature shall worship Christ, — to whom 
 be glory and majesty for ever and ever. Amen." 
 And when about to suffer martyrdom at the ad- 
 vanced age of one hundred, he finished his prayer at 
 the stake as follows : " I bless thee, I glorify thee, 
 by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus 
 Christ, thy beloved Son, with whom, to thee, and 
 the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for ever, 
 world without end, Amen." 
 
 After his death, the Jews suggested to the heathen 
 judge, that he should not permit the church, to which 
 Polycarp had been pastor, to take his body and bury 
 it, lest they should leave the worship of their cruci- 
 fied Master, and begin to worship Polycarp. " Not 
 considering," said they, " that we can never forsake 
 the worship of Christ, who suffered for the salvation 
 of those that are saved in the whole world, the just 
 for the unjust, or worship any other. We worship 
 him, but the martyrs we only love as they deserve 
 for their great affection to their King and Master." 
 
 Let it be remembered that all the witnesses yet 
 cited lived in the first century, and were personally 
 acquainted with some of the apostles. Their testi- 
 mony, therefore, is weighty, and worthy of peculiar 
 attention. 
 
 We will next hear Justin Martyr, who was born 
 A. D. 103, and about A. D. 1G5, sealed his faith 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 12^ 
 
 with his blood, as the latter part of his name signi- 
 fies. His testimony is very decisive. 
 
 In his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, the latter 
 is represented as finding fault with the Christians 
 for maintaining the deity and worship of Christ. 
 " To me," says Trypho, " it appears a paradox in- 
 capable of any sound proof, to say that this Christ 
 was before all time, and that then he was made man 
 and suffered ; and to assert that he was any thing 
 more than a man of men, appears not only para- 
 doxical but foolish." 
 
 " 1 know," replies Justin, " that it appears para- 
 doxical, and particularly to those of your nation, 
 who are determined neither to know nor to do the 
 will of God, but follow the inventions of your 
 teachers, as God declares of you. However, if 1 
 could not demonstrate that he lived before all time, 
 being God, yet as this personage was shown by 
 every possible sort of proof to be the Christ of God, 
 be the question as it may respecting his divinity and 
 humanity, you have no right to deny that he is the 
 Christ of God. Even if he were only a mere man, 
 you could only say, I was mistaken in my idea of 
 his character. For there are some wh(j call them- 
 selves Christians, who confess him to be the Christ, 
 but only a mere man, luiih ivhoni neither /, nor the 
 most part that bear that name agree ; because we are 
 commanded by Christ himself not to obey the pre- 
 cepts of men, but his own injunctions, and those of 
 his holy prophets." In another part of the same 
 dialogue, he calls him " the God of Israel who was 
 with Moses." 
 
130 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Irenseus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disci- 
 ple of St. John, flourislied about A. D. 178, and suf- 
 fered martyrdom about A. D. 202 
 
 In the 4th book of his work against the here- 
 tics, he begins with asserting that " God was made 
 man." In the same book he also asserts that " Je- 
 sus Christ was the God who interrogated Adam, 
 conferred vvitli Noah, and gave him the dimensions 
 of the ark; who spoke to Abraham; who brought 
 the destroying judgments on the inhabitants of So- 
 dom ; who directed Jacob in his journey, and who 
 addressed Moses out of the burning bush at Horeb." 
 He also says. He is called Immanuel, and to con- 
 firm this, he immediately subjoins, among other 
 pointed passages of Scripture, that remarkable text 
 in Rom. ix. 5. " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," 
 which he interprets and applies just as it is inter- 
 preted and applied by modern believers in the su- 
 preme divinity of our Saviour.* 
 
 • "Can we believe," that, " if John and the apostles had dili- 
 gently taught the bare humanity of Christ, and the impersonal 
 unity of the Godhead, that their immediate disciples, and the 
 scholars of their immediate disciples, would agree in expounding 
 a variety of texts after the precise manner in which they are ex- 
 pounded by the Trinitarian ? Would not the very reverse have 
 proved to be the case? Should we not have found all these liti- 
 gated texts distinctly and unanimously interpreted by them, not 
 after tlie mode adopted by the modern Trinitarian, but after some 
 such mode as that which is recommended by the modern Anti- 
 trinitarian? 
 
 "On this topic, I venture to speak with positiveness and deci- 
 sion. From my own personal examination, I can attest, that the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 131 
 
 Again, he says, " That the Word, that is, the Son 
 of God, always existed with the Father, I have 
 largely demonstrated.'" 
 
 Melito, pastor of the church at Sardis, flourished 
 about A. D. 170. 
 
 After observing that it was unnecessary to give 
 further proofs of Christ's humanity, he adds, " The 
 miracles which he wrought after his baptism, most 
 forcibly demonstrate and confirm his divinity con- 
 cealed in the flesh, thus being at once perfect 
 God, and perfect man, he discovered his two na- 
 tures to us ; his divinity by the miracles which he 
 performed in the three years after his baptism, 
 his humanity by the thirty antecedent years in which 
 the meanness of the flesh hid the tokens of his di- 
 vinity, though he was true and everlasting 
 God." 
 
 passages in the New Testament, litigated by Trinitarians and Antv- 
 trinitarians, are constantly understood and interpreted by the 
 fathers of the three first centuries, in the same manner as they 
 are now understood and Interpreted by modern Trinitarians. The 
 work denominated The New Testament in an Improved Version, 
 is the most perfect example of the illegitimate exercise of insulated 
 private judgment, with which I am acquainted. Totally opposing 
 itself to tlie decisions of the catholic church nearest to the times 
 of the apostles, it exliibits interpretations of the htigated texts, 
 framed upon the mere independent dogmata of Dr. Priestley and 
 Mr. Belsham, but altogedier unknown to the ecclesiastics of the 
 three first centuries. I adduce this production, to exemphfy 
 what I mean by the illegitimate use of insulated private judg- 
 ment. If we ask a reason tvht/ the Htigated texts are thus ex- 
 pounded, no answer can be given, save the good pleasure of the 
 editor." Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, p. 62. 
 
132 A PLEA FOR THE TRIMTY. 
 
 Fabian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, who flourish- 
 ed about A. D. 172, in reply to the accusations of 
 the heathen, says, " We do not, O Grecians, tell 
 you idle stories, when we declare that God ivas horn 
 in human form. '''' 
 
 Athenagorus, who was at first an Athenian phi- 
 losopher, and converted to Christianity A. D. 150, 
 and wrote about A. D. 175, speaks as follows: " I 
 have sufficiently demonstrated that we (Christians) 
 are not Atheists, since we believe in one God, un- 
 begotten, eternal, invisible, incomprehensible, known 
 only by reason, and the Logos, surrounded by light 
 and beauty, and spirit, and power, ineffable, who 
 by his Logos created, adorned, and u[)holds the uni- 
 verse. We acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor 
 let any one consider it ridiculous that we should at- 
 tribute a Son to God ; not as the poets, who forming 
 their fables, exhibit gods in no respect better than 
 men. We do not thus think concerning God the 
 Father, or concerning the Son. But the Son of God 
 is the Word of the Father, in manifestation and ener- 
 gy ; by him and for him were all things made. — If 
 you desire a further explanation of the meaning of 
 Son on this point, 1 will endeavour to give you a 
 brief one. He is the first born of the Father, but 
 not as ever beginning to exist. Who is not filled 
 with admiration," says he, " that we who declare 
 God the Father, and God the Son, and God the 
 Holy Spirit, showing both the power of their unity, 
 and the distinction of their order, should be called 
 perverse Atheists ?" 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 133 
 
 Theophilus, who flourished about A. D. 181, ex- 
 pressly acknowledges Christ to be God, and says, 
 " the world was made by him." " For," says he, 
 " when the Father said, let us make man in our own 
 image, after our likeness, he spake to no other but 
 his own Word and his own Wisdom, that is, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost." These he expressly 
 
 styles " A TRINITY IN THE GoDHEAD." 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished A. D. 194, 
 speaks as follows, " Let us give thanks to the only 
 Father and Son, to the Son and the Father, to the 
 Teacher and Master, with the Holy Spirit, one in 
 all respects, in whom are all things, by whom all 
 things are one, by whom is eternal existence, whose 
 members we are, whose is the glory and the ages, 
 who is the perfect good, the perfect beauty, all wise, 
 and all just; to whom be glory now and for ever. 
 Amen." 
 
 The same writer, in his exhortation to the Gen- 
 tiles, styles " Christ the living God, who was then 
 worshipped and adored." " Believe," says he, " O 
 man, in him who is both man and God. Believe in 
 him, O man, who suffered death, and yet is adored 
 as the living God." The following passage is also 
 found in his writings: "The divine Word, most 
 manifestly the true God, was equal to the Lord of 
 all things."* 
 
 * Clement of Alexandria, who flourished toward the latter end 
 of the second century, expressly tells us, that some of the disci- 
 ples of Peter and James, and John and Paul, had lived even down 
 
 12 
 
134 A PLEA FOB THE TRINITY. 
 
 Andronichus, who flourished A. D. 198, speaks 
 much after the manner of Clement, and declares 
 Christ to be of " the same substance with the Fa- 
 ther." 
 
 Tertullian, who flourished about A. D. 200, is 
 very decisive on the subject of Christ's supreme di- 
 vinity. He declares that the names Lord, God, 
 Lord of hosts, Almighty, King of Israel, &c. belong 
 properly to Christ. He expressly styles him " the 
 omnipotent Godf and to prove his plenary deity 
 quotes Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 The testimony of Hippolytes, who flourished A. 
 D. 220, is to the same purport. He declares the 
 Son to have been " co-existent with the Father." 
 
 About the same time lived Minucius Felix, who 
 taking notice of the calumny circulated against the 
 Christians, that they worshipped a mere man, thus 
 repels the charge : " You are greatly mistaken in 
 
 to this time, regularly conveying to that generation, like sons from 
 their fathers, the true apostolic doctrine. — Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 lib. i. p. 274, 275. Colon. 1688. — In a similar manner Justin Mar- 
 tyr declares, that he and the men of his own ecclesiastical gene- 
 ration had been Instructed, in the joint worsliip of the Father, 
 and the Son, and the prophetic Spirit, by the catechists of the 
 generation which preceded him, and which itself must inevitably 
 have conversed with St, John. Justin Apol. i. vulg. ii. oper. p. 
 43. Sylburg. 1593. — Clement floui-ished about forty years later 
 than Justin. Hence, on chronological principles, Clement, I im- 
 agine, must in his youth have conversed witli the apostolical men 
 whom he notices ; just as his partial cotemporary Irenxus de- 
 scribes liimself to have conversed with Polycarp. — Iren. adv. 
 hxr. lib. iii. c. 3. § 3. — Fabo-'s Difficulties of Romanism, p. 61. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 135 
 
 ascribing to our religion the vvorsliip of a guilty man 
 who was crucified, and in thinking either that a 
 guilty man should, or that a mere man could, be 
 acknowledged by us as God." 
 
 Origen, born at Alexandria, A. D. 185, and flour- 
 ished about A. D. 230, and who was undoubtedly 
 the most learned divine of his day, speaks thus con- 
 cerning Jesus Christ. " If he is the image of the in- 
 visible God, the image itself is invisible. — If he is the 
 likeness of the Father, no time ever was when he was 
 not ; for when was God, who by St. John was called 
 light, without the splendour of his own glory ? That 
 any one should presume to assign a beginning to the 
 Son, before which he was not, let him who dares 
 speak thus, ' there was a time when he was not,' 
 consider what he says, namely, that there was a 
 time when reason, and wisdom, and life were not." 
 The same father remarking on these words of our 
 Lord, Matt. xi. 27, says, "For it is impossible that 
 he who was begotten from eternity, and who was 
 the first born before every creature, should be known 
 as to his real dignity by any but the Father who 
 begat him." Accordingly, Socrates, the ecclesias- 
 tical historian, after expressing his wonder how it 
 could have happened that a certain great admirer 
 of Origen should persist in retaining the Arian 
 heresy, gives this reason for his surprise: "That 
 Origen every where confesses the Son to be co-eter- 
 nal with the Father." 
 
 In a creed drawn up by Origen, is the following : 
 " The things handed down to us by apostolical 
 
136 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 preaching are these : 1 st, There is one God vvlio 
 created all things," &c. In the next article is the 
 following : " Jesus Christ, who came into the world, 
 was begotten of the Father before every creature." 
 " He who was God was made flesh ; when he was 
 a man he continued the same God that he was be- 
 fore. They (the apostles) also delivered that the 
 Holy Ghost was joined in the same honour with the 
 Father and Son." 
 
 Again, in his commentary on St. John, Origen 
 says, " The Sabellians did not only make the Fa- 
 ther and the Son one in essence, {which the church 
 also did,) but they carried it so far as to make them 
 one subject or hypostasis, having only a nominaU not 
 a real distinction." 
 
 Once more, he says, " You confess one God, and 
 assert in the same confession that the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God ; how per- 
 plexed, how difficult, how inexplicable does this 
 seem to the unbelieving. ' How perplexed,' cries 
 he who hears, but hears not with faith, ' how diffi- 
 cult do these things appear,' because they themselves 
 are in an error.'''' 
 
 1 will give one more extract from this father. 
 "There are some, indeed, who make a declaration 
 concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 but not in sincerity nor in truth. Such are all here- 
 tics, who indeed profess the Father, the Son, and 
 the Spirit, but not in a right and believing manner. 
 For they either separate the Father from the Son, 
 that they may ascribe one nature to the Father and 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 137 
 
 another to the Son ; or they erroneously compound 
 them, thinking to make of them a compound God, 
 or by supposing only three different names ; but he 
 who rightly confesses the truth, will indeed ascribe 
 to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, their 
 distinct properties, but confesses there is no differ- 
 ence as TO NATURE OR SUBSTANCE."" This is the 
 testimony of the learned Origen, who lived only 1 30 
 years after the apostolic age.* 
 
 • "When they (i. e. the catechumens) shall have become 
 firmly compacted in the Spirit, and when they shall bring forth 
 fruit in it ; then, as loving the heavenly wisdom, we may safely 
 impart to them the hidden doctrine respecting the ascent of the 
 incarnate Word to the state in which he was with God in the be- 
 ginning." Orig. Comment, in Johan. p. 9. 
 
 It may be useful to remark, that this passage, [of which the 
 above is an extract,] and two other parallel passages in the same 
 commentary, (Comment, p. 49, 52,) have been adduced by Dr. 
 Priestley, for the express purpose of demonstrating, that, in the 
 days of Origen, the great multitude of Gentile Christians, were ge- 
 nerally Jlntitrinitarians, who rejected ivith abhorrence the doctrine of 
 our Lord's divinity. Hist, of Early Opin., book iii. chap. xiii. 
 sect. 2. Works, vol. 6. p. 483. 
 
 In a professed historian, such a total ignorance of ecclesiastical an- 
 tiquity is indeed most lamentable. T>r. Priestley, incredible as such 
 an error may well seem, has actually mistaken a very peaceable body 
 of primitive catechumens, to whom, in the course of their religious in- 
 stitution, the higher mysteries of Christianity had not as yet been 
 communicated, — Dr. Priestley has actually mistaken these primitive 
 catechumens, for a mighty army of strenuous and voluble Anti- 
 trinitarian confessors ! 
 
 Scarcely less extraordinary is another closely-connected error, 
 which, in the same section of his work, the histoi-ian lias fallen 
 into, relative to a passage in TertuUian. 
 12* 
 
138 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY- 
 
 Gregory Thaiimaturgus flourished about A. D. 
 235. In his celebrated confession of faith he speaks of 
 
 For the avowed purpose of showing-, that, i7i the time of that 
 father, the majority of the believers were Antitrinitariam, who 
 heMthe doctrine of the divinity of Christ in abhorrence ,- Dr. Priestley 
 adduces a place, in which Tertullian, after tritely remarking that 
 the bulk of believers must, in the very nature of tilings, be al- 
 ways composed of ignorant men, proceeds to censure the then 
 ?2&i'e/ heresy of the patripassians. Now, according to Dr. Priestley, 
 the persons censured by Tertullian were a mighty majority who 
 held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence. Whereas, in 
 truth, these very persons, whose majority Tertullian never asserts, 
 absolutely idctitijied the Son with the Father and the Spirit .• and 
 thence contended, tliat our Lord, by whatever economical name he 
 might be distinguished, was himself God exclusively. Hist, of Early 
 Opin., book iii. chap, xiii., sect. 2, AVorks, vol. 6, p. 486. Ter- 
 tull. adv. Prax. sect. ii. iii. Oper. p. 406. 
 
 The mischief wliich results from productions of such a stamp 
 as Dr. Priestley's two Histories, is almost incalcidable. That author 
 bears a high name among persons of his own religious sentiments ; 
 and, by the unlearned, or half-learned of liis party, all liis strange 
 errors are greedily swallowed without furtlier examination. 
 
 Of this indiscriminating appetite we have a remarkable instance 
 afforded us in a small book, lately pubhshed under the title of 
 Letters in Defence of Unitarianism, by another Barrister. 
 
 FuD of the most unsuspecting simphcity, the heedless author of 
 this book has implicitly copied from Dr. Priestley, all that histo- 
 rian's mistakes relative to the passages in Origen and Tertullian. 
 With the anon}'mous Barrister, as witli tlie ecclesiastical historian, 
 Origen's uninitiated catechumens are zealous systematic dtititrini- 
 faria^is: while TavinVaaxi's patripassian worshippers of Christ as 
 God exclusively, assume the unlooked-for aspect oi persons who 
 held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence. 
 
 Nor is the Barrister the only writer, Mho has been so unhap- 
 pily misled by Dr. Priestley. The manifold eiTors of the unskilful 
 historian have been industi-iously repeated by various otlier infe- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 139 
 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whom he 
 
 styles " A PERFECT TRINITY." 
 
 About A. D. 246 flourished Cyprian, that pious 
 and devoted martyr to the truth, whose testimony is 
 as decisive as can be. He speaks thus, " The Lord 
 says, I and my Father are one ; and again it is writ- 
 ten, these three are one; whoever does not hold this 
 unity, does not hold the law of God — does not 
 
 HOLD THE TRUTH UNTO SALVATION." 
 
 In another place he speaks as follows, "If any 
 one could be baptized among the heretics, he might 
 also obtain remission of sins, and if he obtained the 
 remission of sins be sanctified and made the temple 
 of God : 1 ask of what God ? ] f of the Creator, he 
 could not who did not believe in him. If of Christ, 
 neither could he be his temple who denies Christ 
 TO be God. If of the Holy Ghost, since these three 
 are one, how could the Holy Spirit be reconciled to 
 him who is an enemy to the Father and Son ?" And 
 in proving the supreme divinity of Christ quotes 
 Rom. ix. 5, and falls in exactly with the translation 
 in our version, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever." 
 
 Novation, who flourished A. D. 250, speaks in 
 accordance with the forementioned fathers, on the 
 subject under consideration. He also left a treatise 
 
 rior workmen ; and, on the insecure authority of Dr. Priestley, the 
 saying-, that, in the days of Tertulliun and Origen, religionists 
 who abhorred ihe doctrine of Chrisfs divinity were the.greater part 
 of Christians, is commonly reported among the Unitarians until 
 this day. Fuher's Difficulties of Romanism, p. 106-108. 
 
140 A PLEA FOR THE TRIMTY. 
 
 expressly on the Trinity, from wiiich 1 may take 
 occasion to extract hereafter. 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished 
 A. D, 252, is very explicit on this subject. He says, 
 " Christ is uncreated" — the Creator of all things — 
 God by nature — immutable — Lord over all — Lord 
 and God of Israel," &c. &c. Having been charged 
 with saying that there was a time when the Son 
 was not, and that God the Father was not always 
 Father ; he repels the charge, and affirms that he 
 " always had acknowledged the co-eternity of the 
 Son." And in the first book of his apology he ex- 
 pressly says, " There never was a time when God 
 was not a Father." 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Rome, lived cotemporary 
 with his namesake, Dionysius of Alexandria, A. D. 
 255-269. A short extract will show his opinion, " If 
 he (Christ) was made, there was a time when he 
 was not, but he always was." 
 
 Theognostes lived at the same time, and delivers 
 the same sentiments on this subject with Dionysius. 
 
 Methodius, bishop of Tyre, who flourished A. D. 
 295, is very decisive on the eternity of the Sonship 
 of Christ. But 1 hasten to Lucian, a proselyte of 
 Antioch, greatly distinguished as a student of the 
 Scriptures, and also as a martyr to the cause of 
 Christ, who flourished A. D. 300. The following is 
 part of a creed drawn up by him, with which extract 
 1 will close the testimony of the fathers. " We be- 
 lieve, agreeably to evangelical and apostolical tradi- 
 tion, in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator and 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 141 
 
 Maker of all things, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 his only begotten Son, God, by whom all things 
 were made. — God of God, Whole of Whole, Alone 
 of Alone, Perfect of Perfect, King of Kings, Lord of 
 Lords ; the Living Word, Wisdom, Life, the true 
 Light, the Way of truth, the Resurrection ; the Shep- 
 herd, the Door, Immutable, Unchangeable, the 
 exact image of the Godhead, the Essence, Power, 
 Council, and Glory of the Father," &c. Hillary 
 comments upon this creed, and says that it received 
 the sanction of the council of Antioch, which met 
 A. D. 341. His words are, " A synod of ninety-five 
 holy bishops, who intended thereby to establish the 
 catholic faith'against the Sabellians and Arians." 
 1 have not room to say any thing concerning the 
 testimony of Annolius, or the eloquent Lactantius, 
 tutor to the son of Constantine the great ; or of Atha- 
 nasius, — suffice it to say, that their sentiments on the 
 subject under consideration were the same as those 
 whose testimony has been adduced.* 
 
 This then is the testimony of the early fathers. 
 In the substance of this testimony they all concur. 
 No writer can be found, prior to the council of Nice, 
 which convened A. D. 325, who so much as inti- 
 mates that either he himself denied the divinity of 
 Christ, or of the Spirit, or the trinity, or that the Chris- 
 tian church denied it. The extracts which have 
 been given will serve as a specimen of the manner 
 
 * Miller's Letters on Unitarianism, and the Eternal Sonship of 
 Christ. Bishop Ball on the Eternal Generation of Chi-ist. 
 
142 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 in which they treat that subject when it comes be- 
 fore them. 
 
 We have then their own testimony that the doc- 
 trine of Christ's supreme divinity was beheved in by 
 the church of Christ, from the days of the apostles 
 until the fourth century. It is needless for me to 
 adduce evidence to provie the fact, that the church 
 after this period held this doctrine, especially as no 
 Unitarian will deny it. But we proceed to adduce 
 additional evidence of the fact that this doctrine was 
 held by the church of Christ, in, and immediately 
 after the apostolic age. 
 
( 143 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ANCIENT JEWS AND PAGANS BEAR TESTIMONY THAT 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST's PLENARY DIVINITY WAS HELD 
 BY THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 1 . The Jews bear testimony to this fact. 
 
 Every one acquainted with the New Testament 
 knows that the Jews frequently charged Christ with 
 blasphemy because he made himself equal with 
 God. The charge Christ never denied. He was 
 put to death upon the charge of blasphemj, for 
 having proclaimed himself equal imth God : which 
 (if he was not what he proclaimed himself to be) 
 was a crime of first rate magnitude. Yet did Jesus 
 suffer and die, upon that charge, without so much 
 as even intimating that it was false. 
 
 The learned Jews know well that that prayer, 
 which, in Christian countries is called the prayer 
 against the Sadducees, and in other countries the 
 prayer against the Minnim, the Heretics and Apos- 
 tates, was truly and originally written against the 
 Christians, for being teachers of a trinity and Christ's 
 divinity, and so, as they judged, destroyers of the unity 
 of the Godhead.* This is R. Soloman's sense of that 
 
 * When the Jews (whose hi' -ed to Christ and his followers 
 
144 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 prayer in his notes on the Tahiiud. The Jews also 
 know that this prayer was composed under R. Ga- 
 mahel, who died A. D. 52, that is eighteen years 
 before the destruction of the temple. Justin Martyr, 
 in his dialogue with Trypho, A. D. 139, mentions 
 this prayer, or rather curse, against the Christians, 
 as already spread and received throughout all the 
 synagogues of the world. 
 
 The Tanchuma is a famous book among the 
 Jews ; it has a passage in it, in the Parascha va-elle 
 Massahe^ which the Italian inquisitors blot out of all 
 those books which the Jews printed by Bomberg, 
 at Venice. But this passage is still preserved, and 
 is to this effect, that " Jesus Christ," whom they call 
 wicked Balaam, " taught that he was God ; and 
 on the contrary, R. Tanchuma argues that he was 
 a mere man."* 1 could produce much more evi- 
 dence in confirmation of this fact, but that I may 
 not be unnecessarily tedious, and deeming what has 
 been already adduced sufficient to prove my position 
 true, 1 forbear ; and pass on to show, 
 
 knew no bounds) ascertained that Clu'ist laid claim to the Mes- 
 siahsliip, and that the evidence in liis favour was demonstra- 
 tive, their hatred to him was so great that they immediately began 
 to pretend tliat some of the most remarkable prophecies of Mes- 
 siah had been corrupted ; because they appeared to be fulfilled 
 in Christ. And finding tliat Jesus laid claim to Deity, tliey im- 
 mediately bcg-an to renounce their former notions of the Godhead 
 of the Messiah, and pretended that Christians, by maintaining tlie 
 deity of Jesus, destroyed the unity of the divine essence. 
 * Jewish Church against the Unitarians. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 145 
 
 2. It is asserted by their heathen cotemporaries 
 that the primitive Christians held the deity of Christ. 
 
 After Pontius Pilate had put Jesus Christ to death, 
 he wrote an account of him to the emperor Tiberius. 
 " There was an ancient decree that no one should 
 be received for a deity unless he was first approved 
 of by the senate. Tiberius, in whose time the Chris- 
 tian religion had its rise, having received from Pa- 
 lestine in Syria, an account of such things as mani- 
 fested the truth of Christ's divinity, proposed to the 
 senate that he should be enrolled among the Roman 
 gods, and gave his own prerogative vote in favour of 
 the motion ; but the senate (without whose consent 
 no deification could take place) rejected it, because 
 the emperor himself had declined the same honour. 
 Nevertheless, the emperor persisted in his opinions, 
 and threatened punishment to the accusers of the 
 Christians." This account is given by a learned 
 writer who lived awhile after the apostolic age. 
 
 The first persecution of the Christians was raised 
 by the emperor Nero, A. D. 65, that is, about thirty 
 years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Two 
 Roman historians, viz. Tacitus and Sentorius^ speak 
 of this ; one extract from the latter is sufficient for 
 my purpose. He says, " The Christians likewise 
 were severely punished — a sort of people addicted 
 to a new and mischievous superstition," i. e. the 
 worship of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Pliny the younger was born A. D. 61, or 62, and 
 after holding various and distinguished offices, was 
 '^ent to the provinces of Bithynia and Pontus, by 
 13 
 
146 A PLEA FOR THE TRINIXr. 
 
 the emperor Trajan, A. D. 106-108, as his lieute- 
 nant with proconsular power. The persecution of 
 tiie Christians had commenced under that emperor, 
 A. D. 100 ; and in that remote country, at this time, 
 there were prodigious numbers of them, against 
 whom Pliny, by the emperor's edict, was obliged to 
 use all manner of severity. Being, however, a per- 
 son of moderation, he judged it prudent not to pro- 
 ceed to the extreme rigour of the law until he had 
 represented the case to Trajan, and had received 
 his commands concerning it. He therefore wrote 
 him an epistle, A. D. 107, the following of w'hich is 
 an extract : " They affirmed that the whole of their 
 fault or error lay in this, they were wont to meet on 
 a certain day before it was light, and sing among 
 themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as 
 God." Note. — Here Pliny tells us explicitly that 
 the Christians avowed that it was to Christ as 
 God that they sung praises. 
 
 - We will next notice the testimony of Hierocles, 
 president of Bithynia, and afterwards governor of 
 Alexandria ; in both of which olTices he manifested 
 great zeal against Christianity. In his abridgment 
 of the life of Apollonius Tyanaeus, by Philostratus, 
 he undertakes to compare the wisdom and dignity 
 of the heathen with the folly and superstition of 
 Christians. " We indeed," says he, " do not account 
 the person (Apollonius) who has performed such 
 actions God, but a man favoured of the gods. But 
 they, because of a few miracles, proclaim Jesus 
 TO BE God." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 147 
 
 Celsus, who lived A. D. 176, ridiciiles die Chris- 
 tians for their worship of Christ. He says expressly, 
 that " Jesus was owned by the Christians to be the 
 Son of God," and that " he, being elated with his 
 great powers, declared himself to be God." 
 And Origen, in answering Celsus, brings us ac- 
 quainted with a similar charge. " He objects to us," 
 says Origen, " that we believe Jesus, though pos- 
 sessed of a mortal body, to be God, and that we 
 seem to be serious in this ;" which charge, Origen, 
 so far from denying, on the contrary avows that 
 Christians did so esteem and honour the Son of God. 
 
 Lucian, who lived cotemporary with Celsus, was 
 a bitter enemy of the Christians. In one of his dia- 
 logues entitled Philopatris, there are numerous testi- 
 monies to the writings and practices of the Chris- 
 tians ; all of which are ridiculed, and especially their 
 belief in the doctrine of the trinity. Personating a 
 Christian instructing a catechumen, he makes the 
 catechumen ask this question : " By whom shall 1 
 swear?" The Christian instructer replies, "By the 
 God that reigns on high, the great immortal heaven- 
 ly God, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit 
 proceeding from the Father, one in three, and 
 three in one." This he did w^ith the intention of 
 ridiculing the doctrines of Christianity. The doc- 
 trine was, therefore, believed by the Christians. He 
 elsewhere also directly charges the Christians with 
 " worshipping their crucified imposter," as he blas- 
 phemously styles our blessed Lord. 
 
 In the work against Christianity which has been 
 
148 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 substantially preserved, and which has been regu- 
 larly answered by Cyril of Alexandria, Julian ridi- 
 cules the adoration of Christ ; the Godhead of Christ ; 
 the birth of Christ from the virgin ; the conception 
 of Christ by the Holy Ghost; the doctrine that 
 Christ was the Creator of the universe ; the doctrine 
 that Christ is the Word of God, the Son of God, 
 God from God of the substance of his Father ; and 
 the doctrine of the trinity, which is the basis of 
 Christ's Godhead. These doctrines, therefore, were 
 then believed by Christians.* 
 
 * Miller's Letters on Unitarlanlsm. Home's Introduction to 
 the Critical Study of the Scriptures. Dwight's Theology. Faber's 
 Difficulties of Romanism. 
 
( 149 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS HELD THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF 
 JESUS CHRIST, PROVED BY THE FACT, THAT ALL W^HO RE- 
 JECTED IT WERE CONDEMNED BY, AND EXPELLED FROM 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS HERETICS. 
 
 The first class of heretics that shall be mentioned 
 is the Cerinthians, so called from Cerinthus, a dis- 
 ciple of Simon Magus, and who lived in the apostolic 
 age. 
 
 Without entering into a detail concerning the 
 opinions of this man on other subjects, it is sufficient 
 to state that he denied the supreme divinity of Jesus 
 Christ. He believed that a super-angelic being, or 
 influence, was united to the man born of Joseph and 
 Mary at his baptism, and thereby constituted him 
 the Messiah, or Christ. What kind of reception 
 these opinions met from the Christians of that day 
 the following testimonies will be sufficient to show. 
 
 Irenseus expressly declares, that the apostle " John 
 designed by his gospel to remove the error which 
 was sown among men by Cerinthus." 
 
 Jerome also says, " Last of all, at the request of 
 the bishops of Asia, John wrote his gospel against 
 Cerinthus and other heretics." Irenseus also states, 
 13* 
 
150 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 tliat the apostle John, while he resided at Ephesus, 
 once going to bathe, and perceiving that Cerinthus 
 was in the bath, came out again, saying, " Let us 
 flee, lest the bath should fall, while Cerinthus, an 
 enemy to the truth, is within." 
 
 Tiie Cerinthians were soon succeeded by the 
 Ebionites, who appeared early in the second cen- 
 tury. They took their name from Ebion, a disciple 
 of Cerinthus, who appeared to have adopted all his 
 leading opinions, not only denying Christ's divinity, 
 but teaching that he was but a mere man. Irenaeus 
 speaking of diis sect says, " Those that say he was 
 but a man engendered o^ Joseph, die, continuing in 
 the bondage of former disobedience : having to the 
 last no conjunction with the Word of God the Fa- 
 ther, nor receiving freedom through the Son, accord- 
 ing to that saying of his own, If the Son shall make 
 you free, ye shall be free indeed ; but not knowing 
 him who is incarnate of the virgin, they are deprived 
 of his gift, which is eternal life." Again, he says, 
 " How can the Ebionites be saved, unless he who 
 wrought their salvation on earth be God." Jerome 
 also speaks of him as that " heresiarch Ebion."* 
 
 * What, then, can be the value of an argument in favour of 
 Unitarianism, from its having been tl\e <« early opinion," of tliese 
 malignant opposers and gross calumniators of the apostle of the 
 Gentiles, tliese daring corruptors of the Clu-istian docti-ine, these 
 rancorous enemies to the liberty and the spu-it of the gospel ? 
 
 ** Surely," said a judicious and temperate divine to Dr. Priest- 
 ley ; "surely we may congratulate the launilitij, if we cannot the 
 wisdom of the eighteenth century, so famous for many other in- 
 teresting and memorable exploits, while we behold its most ra- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 151 
 
 After the Ebionites, Marcion, an Asiatic, appear- 
 ed. Being expelled from his father's church for im- 
 morality, he went to Rome and espoused the cause 
 of heres}^ Like modern Unitarians, Marcion muti- 
 lated the whole gospels, and indeed the whole Bible, 
 with great freedom. Accordingly, we find him stig- 
 matized as a heretic, not only by Irenseus, but also 
 Justin Martyr, who formally opposed and refuted 
 his heresies ; and also by Tertullian, who wrote se- 
 veral books against him, in which he condemns him 
 as a gross heretic ; as having departed from the faith, 
 and church of Christ ; and by Polycarp also, who 
 not only denounced him as a heretic, but when 
 Marcion, mortified at Polycurp's treatment of him, 
 said, " Polycarp, acknowledge us ;" the holy man of 
 God replied, " I do acknowledge thee as the first 
 born of Satan." 
 
 Concerning this heretic, Cyprian writes in the fol- 
 lowing manner : " Our Lord, after his resurrection, 
 instructing his disciples how they should baptize, 
 says, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost. Here he gives an intima- 
 tion of a trinity, in whose sacrament the nations 
 were to be baptized. Does Marcion believe the 
 trinity ? Does he believe the same Father the Crea- 
 tor, as we believe in ? Docs he acknowledge the 
 
 tional divines, after struggling' for liberty and improving science, 
 commencing, with no small complacency, the obsequious disciples 
 of these obscure, ignorant, antiapostolic Nazarenes and Ebionites." 
 — Smith's Letters to Bdsham. Let. 6. 
 
152 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 same only Son, Christ, born of the virgin Mary, who 
 being the Word, was made flesh, and suffered for 
 our sins ? Marcion, and all other heretics, held a 
 very different faith." 
 
 Towards the close of the second century, Theo- 
 dotus, the currier, appeared at Kome, and publicly 
 taught that Jesus Christ was a mere man. He was 
 immediately excommunicated from the church, and 
 by all the principal writers of that time, and for se- 
 veral centuries afterwards, who had occasion to 
 speak of heresies : he is denounced not only as a 
 heretic, but as one of the very worst sort. 
 
 After Theodotus, appeared Artemon, who adopt- 
 ed a system very much like that of the Byzantine 
 currier ; he was immediately condemned as a heretic, 
 and excluded from the communion of the chtirch. 
 
 About A. D. 220, arose Noetus of Smyrna, who 
 advanced certain opinions concerning Jesus Christ, 
 which were in a few years afterwards adopted by 
 Sabellius of Africa ; from whom, on account of his 
 superior eloquence and conspicuity, the system 
 which he maintained, has since received the name 
 of Sabellianism. Sabellius rejected all the distinc- 
 tion of persons in God, and alleged that the trinity 
 was only nominal, that is, that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost were only three names, or offices, of one 
 and the same hypostasis or person. He affirmed 
 that Jesus Christ was truly God and man ; but, that 
 the one iudivickial Deity was incarnate in him. And 
 hence he and his followers were sometimes called 
 patripassians, because they considered the Father 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 153 
 
 as incarnate in Christ. This doctrine the pious of 
 that day considered as striking at the foundation of 
 the system of redemption ; and therefore condemned 
 it as a fatal heresy. Noetus was solemnly excom- 
 municated from the church, and his doctrine stigma- 
 tized as heretical by two successive synods. And a 
 kw years afterwards Sabellius and his opinions re- 
 ceived the same treatment. 
 
 Beryllus, bishop of Bozrah, about this time adopt- 
 ed a modification of the system of Sabellius. He 
 was immediately opposed by Origen, and excluded 
 from the body of the Christian church. But shortly 
 after, professing to be convinced by the reasoning of 
 his antagonist, he returned to the communion of the 
 church, and his party became extinct. 
 
 Praxeas was another heretic. In substance he 
 was a Sabellian, denying that the distinction of per- 
 sons in the Godhead was any thing more than no- 
 minal. He was formally condemned by Zephyrinus, 
 bishop of Rome. In consequence of his condemna- 
 tion he wrote and signed a recantation of his errors ; 
 but not long after he began to propagate them anew. 
 He was again expelled from the church and op- 
 posed by Tertullian, who drove hmi off the field in 
 triumph.*- 
 
 The next conspicuous advocate of erroneous 
 opinions concerning the person of our Saviour, was 
 
 * I think it very remarkable, that there was not a single martyr 
 among those many heretics who disagreed with the apostolical 
 church, and introduced several wild and absurd notions into the 
 doctrines of Christianity. — Mdison's Evidences, p. 56, 57. 
 
154 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITT. 
 
 Paul of Samosata. He was a vain, artful, arrogant, 
 and licentious man ; and gave great uneasiness to 
 such of his neighbouring brethren as were favour- 
 able to exemplary piety. Paul coincided in opinion 
 almost with modern Socinians. But when his 
 brethren convened to ascertain his sentiments, and 
 give judgment concerning them, he manifested so 
 much skill in the arts of concealment and equivo- 
 cation, that for a considerable time they could decide 
 nothing in his case. In the first that convened he 
 went so far as to declare on oath that he held no 
 such opinions as were imputed to him ; but that he 
 adhered to the apostolical decrees and doctrines. 
 This gave so much pleasure to the members of the 
 council, that before its dissolution they united in 
 singing a hymn, in which they celebrated the praises 
 of Christ as God. But it soon appeared that he 
 had acted a disingenuous part, and was beginning 
 again to propagate the opinions which he had dis- 
 owned. Another council was called, — again he de- 
 nied and prevaricated. At length Malchion, one of 
 the clergy of the church of Antioch, had the address 
 and fidelity to interrogate him in such a manner, and 
 to press him with such effect that he could no longer 
 escape detection. He was unanimously condemn- 
 ed as a heretic, and deposed from the ministry. The 
 bisho|is who composed this council addressed an 
 epislle to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, giv- 
 ing them an account of the opinions and character 
 of Paul for their information and warning, in which 
 they exhibit a shocking picture of his conduct as 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 155 
 
 well as his principles. Eusebius says of him, that 
 "The leader of the heresy at Antioch was discover- 
 ed, and by all manifestly convicted of another 
 doctrine than that which is preached by the whole 
 catholic church under heaven.'''' 
 
 Early in the fourth century arose the celebrated 
 Alius, an eloquent and popular ecclesiastic, who 
 taught that Christ was the most exalted of all crea- 
 tures, but still a creature : that this exalted creature 
 was united to a human body, and that in the person 
 thus constituted there was nothing more of human 
 nature than tiie flesh ; the Word or Logos being the 
 soul that animated this body. These notions were 
 no sooner divulged than they made considerable 
 noise ; and Arius being a man, not only of art, acute- 
 ness, and eloquence, but of exemplary morals, suc- 
 ceeded in obtaining many friends and advocates. A 
 number of clergymen, and some of no small distinc- 
 tion embraced, and openly taught his heresy. In 
 short, his adherents became so numerous and bold, 
 that measures of a more decisive character than 
 usual were thought necessary by the church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Accordingly, A. D. 325, the council of Nice was 
 assembled by command of the emperor, to consider 
 and decide on the case of Arius. This was the first 
 general council that ever convened in the Christian 
 church. Other councils comprising the ministers of 
 large sections of the church, had often assembled 
 before ; and some of them were truly respectable in 
 point of numbers ; but the council of Nice was the 
 
156 A PLEA rOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 first, in which delegates from the whole Christian 
 church were summoned by imperial authority, to 
 meet on the business of the whole church. In fact 
 it was only about that time that such a measure be- 
 came practicable ; for it was only in that very year 
 that Constanline, the first Christian emperor, be- 
 came sole head of the empire. 
 
 When the council came together, it was found 
 extremely difficult to obtain from Arius any satis- 
 factory explanation of his views. Like Paul of 
 Samosata, he discovered a strong disposition to 
 evade and equivocate, and actually bafifled for some 
 time, the attempts of the most learned and inge- 
 nious of the orthodox to specify and bring to light 
 his errors. At length, by adopting some of his ex- 
 pressions, which were thought to be of sufficiently 
 discriminating import, they succeeded in detecting 
 and exhibiting his opinions in their real deformity. 
 These opinions were condemned as heretical by an 
 almost unanimous vole of the council, and the creed 
 drawn up and signed, in substance the same with 
 that which we now commonly call the Nicene 
 creed. Out of more than six hundred 7?iembers, of 
 which this council was composed, only twenty-two 
 or tvventy-tliree dissented from t^ie final judgment ; 
 and of these, twenty finally yielded and subscribed 
 the orthodox synodical creed. Arius and his adhe- 
 rents in the synod, persisting in their refusal to sub- 
 scribe, were not only condemned as heretics, but de- 
 posed from the ministry, and excommunicated from 
 the church. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 157 
 
 This creed, as drawn up and ratified by the coun- 
 cil, was originally as follows : " We believe in one 
 God Almighty, maker of all things visible and invi- 
 sible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
 — begotten of the Father, — the only begotten that is 
 of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light 
 of Light, very God of very God, — begotten, not 
 made, — consubstantial with the Father. — By whom 
 all things in heaven and earth were made, — who for 
 us men, and our salvation, came down from heaven, 
 and was incarnate; — and made man, and suffered, 
 — and the third day rose again, and ascended into 
 heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick 
 and the dead. — And in the Holy Ghost. — And the 
 catholic and apostolic church anathematizes those 
 who say that there was a time when the Son of God 
 was not, or that he was not before he was born ; or, 
 that he was made out of nothing, or of another 
 substance or essence, or that he was created or 
 mutable."* 
 
 In estimating the degree of importance to be at- 
 tached to this creed, let it never be forgotten that 
 we are by no means to consider it as expressing the 
 
 * Dr. Priestley, and those who copy after him, tell us that the 
 primitive Christian church was Unitarian. Is it not astonishing' 
 then, that when the Chi-istians first began to get into the error of 
 Trinitarians, (and they must soon have commenced after the 
 apostohc age, as the whole church was Trinitarian about the 
 close of the third century, Unitarians themselves being judges ;) 
 not a voice was raised against this "monstrous" error ; and not a 
 Trinitarian was condemned for heresy ? 
 14 
 
158 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 individual opinions of a few ecclesiastics ; but the 
 digested, solemn judgment of the whole church, by 
 its representatives assembled for the express purpose 
 of considering and deciding the controversy to which 
 it relates. 
 
 We have, therefore, the creed of the whole Chris- 
 tian church, on the point in question, professed and 
 stated in a single document. Those who are ac- 
 quainted with the history of the A'icene council, 
 well know how deeply the subject was discussed, 
 and with what peculiar care, and mature advise- 
 ment, the strong language of their creed w- as select- 
 ed and adjusted. And every such impartial person 
 cannot fail of seeing in it evidence amounting to de- 
 monstration, that the doctrines of the divinity and 
 personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, and of the 
 trinity of persons in the Godhead were universally 
 deemed, at that time, as essential parts of Christian 
 faith. 
 
 In support of the proposition laid down at the 
 commencement of this chapter, I deem it unneces- 
 sary to adduce further evidence ; but before 1 close, 
 I will briefly notice the testimony of those times to 
 the distinct personality and deity of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 A few years after the Arian heresy had been 
 condemned by the council of Nice, Macodonius, 
 bishop of Constantinople, denied the personality of 
 the Holy Ghost,* maintaining that what was called 
 
 • Mr. Jared Sparks, (Inquiry, p. 155,) observes, " As for a 
 trinity of persons, nolliing is heard of it, till tJie deity of Hie Holy 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 159 
 
 by this name in Scripture was only a divine energy 
 diffused throughout the universe, and nothing proper- 
 ly distinct from the Father and the Son. Macedonius 
 was deposed as a heretic by a council convened 
 at Constantinople, A. D. 360, and his opinions still 
 more solemnly examined and condemned by the 
 second general council convened at Constantinople, 
 by order of Theodosus, A. D. 381. Here is another 
 instance in which we see, not merely a distinguish- 
 ed individual, but the whole Christian church 
 deliberating on a new form of heresy, and solemnly 
 deciding that the divinity and personality of the 
 Holy Ghost, and, by consequence, the trinity of per- 
 
 Ghosi ivas decreed by the council of Constantinople, near the close of 
 the fourth century." This, truly, is a luminous emanation. This 
 person does not appear to know that if the whole Christian church 
 had not held the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost, they 
 would not have condemned Macedonius, {the only man who then 
 denied it,) for discarding' it. That this question was never before 
 agitated, can only be accounted for on the supposition that the 
 doctrine of the personahty and deity of the Holy Ghost was uni- 
 versally received. 
 
 Quere. Did Mr. Sparks know that there had been such a 
 council as the council of Nice, held A. D. 325 ; and that, thirty- 
 five years before the time in which he says the doctrine of the trinity 
 was first heard of , the whole Christian church had, by their repre- 
 sentatives, professed their belief in tliis doctrine ? 
 
 He has flxUen into another singular ei'ror. He says that the 
 council of Constantinople was held, "near the close of the fourth 
 century .•" when it was held A. D. 360. I have too much charity 
 for the man to beUeve that he said this designedly, wlule he knew 
 at the same time it was not so. 
 
160 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 sons in the Godhead were to be considered as funda- 
 mental articles of the Christian faith.* 
 
 I now consider the position as clearly established, 
 that the Christian church in the times of Christ and 
 his apostles, and immediately after, held the supreme 
 divinity of Jesus Christ. The heathen testimony, or 
 that of either the Christian or Jewish church, is of 
 itself sufficient to establish the point in dispute. But 
 when they all harmoniously unite in testifying to the 
 truth of this same fact, the evidence amounts to 
 nothing short of demonstration that the doctrine of 
 the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, was a doc- 
 trine believed in by the primitive Christian church. 
 
 * See Miller's Letters on Unitarianlsm, and Mosheim's Eccle- 
 siastical History. 
 
PART III. 
 
 ADDITIONAL E\1DENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE DOC- 
 TRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF A PLURALITY AND TRINITY IX THE 
 GODHEAD, EXCLUSIVE OF THOSE PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK 
 ONLY OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, AND OF THE HOLY 
 GHOST. THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 The deity of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 being now estabhshed, we might without further re- 
 marli here rest the subject-, as the doctrine of a 
 trinity in the divine essence must follow as a matter 
 of course. Notwithstanding, 1 will adduce a few 
 additional evidences, jfrs^ of a plurality, and second- 
 ly^ of a trinity in the Godhead. 
 
 But before I proceed to adduce these evidences, 
 perhaps it is necessary that I should briefly state the 
 subject under discussion. I have observed, that, in 
 disputing with Unitarians on this subject, it has been 
 always necessary to state the precise point in dis- 
 pute, as they can seldom apprehend what it is, vvith- 
 14* 
 
162 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 out it is plainly stated ; and even then, they frequent- 
 ly mistake it for something else. 
 
 1 would briefly observe then, that the point in 
 dispute is not whether there be one God ; for in tiiis 
 we are agreed. Neither is the point whether there 
 be THREE Gods ; for in this we are likewise agreed. 
 But it is, whether or not there be in the divine 
 essence one, or three, hypostases, or (for want of 
 a more suitable word) persons. Here we affirm, 
 and they deny.* 
 
 * Professor Norton, of Cambridge, Mass. says, "Now there is 
 no dispute that the Father is God ; and it being thus proved, that 
 the Son and Spirit are each also God, it is inferred, not that there 
 are three Gods, wliich seems to us the proper consequence, but 
 that there are three persons In the divinity." See his Desultory 
 Remarks on Professor Stuart's Letters io Dr. Chaim'uig. — Christian 
 Disciple, vol. 1., p. 384. But as the learned Professor appears to 
 have forgotten it, I hope he will not be offended with me for tell- 
 ing him that he has left out of the argument an essential part of 
 the premises. He should have stated it thus : — Now there is no 
 dispute that there is one God: and it is also admitted that tlie Fa- 
 ther is God ; and it being proved that the Son and Spirit are 
 each also God, it is inferred, not that there are three Gods, which 
 does not appear to be tlie proper consequence ; but, tliat there 
 are three persons in the divine essence. 
 
 Speaking in reference to the same subject, that is, when about 
 to prove the docti-ine of the trinity false, the learned Professor 
 likewise says, (p. 403,) " We shall endeavour, and we hope not 
 without success, to be as clear as possible ; but the subject neces- 
 sarily involves statements, remarks, reasonings, and criticisms of 
 such a cliaracter, tliat ihei/ may not be apprehended with perfect 
 ease; nor their ^orcc and correctness at once perceived." As the 
 former of th^se quotations is a fair specimen of the learned Pro- 
 fessor's "reasonings, and criticisms," I am obliged to confess myself 
 of the number who cannot " with perfect ease," apprehend " their 
 force and correctness." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITT. 163 
 
 But in order to render the subject as clear as pos- 
 sible, J will present the reader with an extract from 
 Dean Swift's sermon on the doctrine of the trinity, 
 contained in vol. 2d, of his works. 
 
 " The word triniti/, is indeed not in Scripture ; 
 but was a term of art, invented in earlier times, to 
 express the doctrine by a single word, for the sake of 
 brevity and convenience. The doctrine, then, as 
 delivered in Holy Scripture, though not exactly in 
 the same words, is very sliort, and amounts only to 
 this : that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 are each of diem God, and yet there is but one God." 
 "God commands us to believe there is a union, and 
 there is a distinction ; but what that union, or what 
 that distinction is, all mankind are equally ignorant ; 
 and must continue so, at least, till the day of judg- 
 ment, without some new revelation. Therefore, 1 
 shall again repeat the doctrine of the trinity as it is 
 positively affirmed in Scripture : that God is there 
 expressed in three different names, as Father, as 
 Son, and as Holy Ghost ; that each of these is God, 
 and that there is but one God. But this union and 
 distinction are a mystery utterly unknown to man- 
 kind. This is enough for any good Christian to be- 
 lieve, on this great article, without inquiring any 
 further. And this can be contrary to no man's 
 reason, although the knowledge of it is hid from 
 him." " It is highly probable that if God should 
 please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the 
 trinity, or some other mysteries in our holy religion, 
 we should not be able to understand them, unless 
 
164 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 he should at the same time think fit to bestow on us 
 some new powers or faculties of the mind, which 
 we want at present, and which are reserved 'till 
 the resurrection to life eternal. For ' now^'' as the 
 apostle says, ' we see through a glass darkly^ but then 
 face to face.'' Reason itself is true and just ; but the 
 reason of every particular man is weak and waver- 
 ing, perfectly swayed or turned by his interests, his 
 passions, or his vices." 
 
 To the above 1 will add the following. Mr Bos- 
 well observes, (Tour to the Hebrides, p. 70,) that 
 he put to Dr. Johnson the following question : — 
 "Would not the same objection hold against the 
 trinity, as against transubstaniialion ?" To which 
 he replied, " Yes, if you take three and one in the 
 same sense. If you do so, to be sure, you cannot 
 believe it ; but the three persons in the Godhead are 
 three in one sense, and one in another.'''' 
 
 We are not required to believe how God is 07ie in 
 one sense, and three in another, but simply that he is 
 so. We are only required ifj give our assent to these 
 plain propositions, viz. That God is one : and that 
 the Father is God, and that the Son is God, and 
 that the Holy Ghost is God. 
 
 1 will here add a remark or two, upon the unfair- 
 ness of the Unitarian mode of controversy with Tri- 
 nitarians. 
 
 1. They treat Trinitarians as if they were Tri- 
 theists, or held the existence of more Gods than one. 
 This they do in several methods. Particularly, the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 165 
 
 name Unitarian is designed to denote that they, 
 among Christians, exclusively hold the existence of 
 one God. The very name itself, therefore, is intend- 
 ed to declare that Trinitarians hold the existence of 
 more Gods than one. An imputation which they 
 well know every Trinitarian rejects with abhorrence. 
 Again, In arguing with Trinitarians they custo- 
 marily undertake to prove that the Scriptures, in a 
 great variety of passages, assert there is but one 
 God. As if this were the very point, or at least one 
 point, in debate between them and Trinitarians. 
 Accordingly, when they have proved this point, 
 which a child can easily do, they commonly triumph, 
 and appear to consider the dispute as ended, and 
 their antagonists as overthrown. In this way they 
 insinuate that Trinitarians hold the existence of 
 more Gods than one, and that all their arguments 
 are intended to support this doctrine. Whereas, 
 every Unitarian perfectly well knows that the unity 
 of God is as entirely, and as professedly, holden by 
 Trinitarians as himself: that none of their argu- 
 ments are directed against it, and that this point has 
 never been, and never can be, in debate between 
 him and them. That the doctrine of the trinity in- 
 volves, or infers, the existence of more Gods than 
 one, every Unitarian has a right to prove, and may 
 with perfect fairness prove if he can. But to in- 
 sinuate that Trinitarians believe the existence of 
 more Gods than one, or to treat them as if they thus 
 believed, when it is perfectly well known that every 
 
166 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Trinitarian disclaims such belief with indignation, 
 is conduct which can admit of no justification.* 
 
 Because the doctrine of the trinity is a mysterious 
 doctrine, many of our opponents think it unneces- 
 sary to enter into an examination of the evidences 
 for or against it. Because if it is mysterious (say 
 they), we cannot understand it, and it is impossible 
 to believe what we do not understand. This objec- 
 tion has been so often, and so ably refuted, that it is 
 unnecessary for me to waste time and paper in 
 showing its absurdity ; — suffice it to remark, that the 
 individual who will believe nothing but what he can 
 understand, is in great danger of becoming an unbe- 
 liever in his own existence.! 
 
 But with regard to mysteries in religion, 1 will re- 
 quest my reader to attend to the following truly ex- 
 cellent remarks extracted from a sermon of James- 
 Conybeare, A. M., preached before the University 
 of Oxford, October 21st, 1722. 
 
 " The terra mystery hath a relative sense, and im- 
 plies a respect to that person's understanding to 
 whom the thing is mysterious. It will appear from 
 
 • Dwiglit's Theology. 
 
 f Of the doctrine of the trinitj-, Priestley makes short and easy 
 work. "If it had been found there," that is, in the Scriptures, 
 "it would have been impossible for a reasonable man to believe 
 it ; as it implies a contradiction wliich no miracles can prove." 
 Hence, the Socinians might save themselves all trouble in wrest- 
 ing tlie Scriptiu'es, and the Trinitarians might be left to them- 
 selves, since their great error consists in believing that which 
 "it is impossible to believe." — Sec Douglass' Errors Regarding Re- 
 ligion, p. 170. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 167 
 
 hence, that a doctrine is so far to any man ynyste- 
 rious, as he cannot, or does not, comprehend it. And 
 if a mysterious doctrine be therefore false, these con- 
 sequences will follow : that the knowledge of the 
 most ignorant person is the standard of truth ; that 
 there can be no real difference in men's intellectual 
 attainments ; and no real progress made in know- 
 ledge. — For if every mysterious doctrine* be false, 
 and if every doctrine not comprehended by the most 
 ignorant person be to him mysterious ; then every 
 suck doctrine is false. It follows, that all truth is 
 by him comprehended, i. e. that his understanding is 
 the measure of truth ; that no one man can be really 
 more knowing than another ; and no man really 
 more knowing at one time than another. So fruit- 
 ful is one absurdity of many more."* 
 
 But I proceed with the Scriptural evidences. 1 
 will produce, 1. Some passages which speak sim- 
 ply of a plurality in the divine essence. 2. Some 
 which speak of a trinity. And, 3. A few of the evi- 
 dences of the trinity in unity. 
 
 1. That there is a plurality in the Godhep.d is evi- 
 dent from Gen. i. 1, " In the beginning God (Elohim) 
 created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew 
 name so often used in the Old Testament which we 
 have translated by the word God, is Elohim, a noun 
 
 • The quibble of Unitarians that " it is impossible for a mys- 
 terious doctrine to be part of a revelation from God ; for if re- 
 vealed it is no longer mysterious," is scarcely worth noticing. It 
 is the truth of the proposition, or doctrine, that is revealed ; — the 
 manner, how it is true, is not revealed. 
 
168 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY- 
 
 substantive of the plural number^ regularly formed 
 from its singular, and veiy frequently joined with 
 verbs and plural adjectives, to express a plurality 
 in the divine nature ; though for another reason it is 
 generally constructed witli verbs and pronouns of 
 the singular number. The Jews w^ould persuade us 
 not to consider this word as a plural noun but on 
 some occasions. But whoever will be at the pains 
 to examine their reasoning, will find it to be very 
 childish, and wholly owing to their hatred against 
 the divinity of Christ, and their notion of a trinity. 
 But when the Jew is become a Christian, and the 
 stumbling-block of the cross removed out of his 
 way, he can allow the name Elohim, to be plural 
 as readily as other men, and it is one of the principal 
 points he chooses to insist upon to convince the world 
 that his eyes are open, and he is sincere in his profes- 
 sion of the Christian religion. 
 
 John Xeres, a Jew converted to Christianity 
 some time ago, published a sensible and affectionate 
 address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein he lays 
 before them his reasons for leaving the Jewish reli- 
 gion and embracing the Christian. " The Chris- 
 tians (says he) confess Jesus to be God ; and it is 
 this that makes us look upon the gospels as books 
 that overturn the very principles of n^ligion, the 
 truth of which is built upon this article, the unity of 
 God. In this argument lies the strength of what you 
 object to in the Christian religion." Then he un- 
 dertakes to prove that the unity of God is not what 
 he once understood it to be, an unity o[peiso?i, but 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 169 
 
 the essence under which more persons than one are 
 comprehended ; and the first proof he offers is the 
 name Elohim. " Wiiy else (says lie) is this frequent 
 mention of God by nouns of the plural number, as in 
 Gen. i. 1, where the word Elohim, which is render- 
 ed God, is of the plural number, though annexed to 
 a verb of the singular number, which demonstrates 
 as evidently as ti^ay be, that there are several per- 
 sons partaking of the same divine nature.''* 
 
 * In opposition to the above argument for a plurality in the 
 Dfity, Unitarians quote what they term "a7'ule," from the He- 
 brew g-rammar, which is as follows : " Words that express domi- 
 nion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural." 
 
 On this I observe, 1. This " rule," if it be one, is not a rule of 
 common application. It is found neither in Parkhurst, nor in Pike, 
 nor in some other grammars. 
 
 2. All the instances adduced of the application of this rule, in 
 v.'hich the reference is to Jehovah, must be set aside as not at all in 
 point. It is from these that we derive our evidence ; and there- 
 fore, to bring forward these, as exemphfications of a rule, which 
 is alleged to subvert tliis evidence, is to beg the question in dis- 
 pute. The rule, if established, must be established from other 
 cases. 
 
 3 . Had the rule in question been a common idiom of the lan- 
 guage, we might very reasonably have expected to find it in ap- 
 plication, in the case of such words as king, prince, ruler, and 
 many otliers of a similar description, wliich convey the idea o 
 dominion, dignity, and majesty. No such instances, however, 
 are adduced by our opponents. 
 
 4. While the commonness of this rule or idiom is far from being 
 established by the facts in the practice of the language, I almost 
 wonder that it should not ; because it appears to me, that an 
 idiom of this kind, would find an origin so natural, in the very 
 circumstance in the name of one God in three persons having a 
 
 13 
 
170 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 R. Judah Monis, another Jew converted to Chris- 
 tianity about 1 720, in his book in defence of the 
 trinity, addressed to the Jewish nation, for proof of 
 the plurality in the divine essence refers them to the 
 following passages in particular, Gen. i. 1 ; i. 26 ; 
 xviii. 2, 3 ; xx. 13 ; Exod. iii. 14 ; Deut. iv. 7 ; vi. 4 ; 
 Josh. xxii. 22 ; 1 Sam. iv. 8 ; 2 Sam. vii. 23 ; Jer. 
 xxiii. 36 ; Prov. xxx. 4 ; Ps. ii. 7 ; Iviii. 12 ; Isa. vi. 
 3 ; Mai. i. 6.* 
 
 The next argument for the plurality of the Deity 
 is taken from Gen. i. 26, " And God said. Let us 
 make man in our own image after our likeness.'''' 
 
 No sensible reason can be given why God should 
 speak of himself in the plural number, unless he 
 consists of more persons than one. 'Tis true, our 
 adversaries tell us that it is a figurative way of 
 speaking only to express the dignity of God, not to 
 denote any plurality in him ; and they observe, it is 
 customary for a king, who is only one person, to 
 
 plural form. In him are concentrated all the ideas we can form, 
 and infinitely more, of dominion, dignity, and majesty. And, in 
 these circumstances, it miglit have been highly natural for the 
 Hebrews to give a plural termination to other words in their lan- 
 guage, expressive of similar qualities and attributes. 
 
 It is well worthy of notice, that almost invariably, when the 
 plui-al name aleim is used to signify /«&e gods, the verb connect- 
 ed witli it IS plural; but when it is a designation of God hunself, 
 the verb is singular. 
 
 See this subject treated at some length, by the Rev. Dr. 
 Wardlaw, (a gentleman of whom the Unitarians are in no way 
 fond,) of Scotland, in his work entitled, " Unitarianism Incapa- 
 ble of Vindicatiwi," pp. 78-98. See also Jones on the Trinity. 
 
 • " Nothing but the Trutli," by R. Judah Monis. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 171 
 
 speak of himself in the same style. But how absurd 
 is the supposition, that God should borrow his way 
 of speaking from a king, before a man was created 
 upon the earth ; — and yet granting this to be possible, 
 yet the cases will not agree ; for although a king, or 
 governor may say us, and we, there is certainly no 
 figure of speech that will allow any person to say 
 one of us. It is a phrase that can have no meaning, 
 unless there are more persons than one to clioose 
 out of; yet this is the style in which God has spoken 
 of himself.* 
 
 The next passage is Gen. iii. 22, " And the Lord 
 God said, Behold the man is become as one of us.'''' 
 The Jews are greatly perplexed with this passage. 
 They endeavour to put it off by telling us that God 
 must here be understood to speak of himself and 
 his council made up of angels, &c. To which there 
 needs no answer but that of the prophet, " Who 
 hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been 
 his counsellor ?"" Is. xl. 13, Rom. xi. 34. 
 
 The following passages are to the same purpose. 
 Gen. xi. 6,7, " Go to, let us go down and there con- 
 found their language." Isa. vi. 8, "I heard the 
 voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall 1 send, and 
 who will go for zz5." 
 
 • The Umtarian, ISIr. Noah Worcester, in his " Bible 
 News," on Gen. i. 26, admits that God spake in this passage "/o 
 some other person." If so, then, "so)7ie other person" was engaged 
 with God in the work of creation. But according to himself, this 
 "some other person," was a creature — and ergo, a a-eature can be a 
 creator ! 
 
173 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Another argument in favour of a plurality in God 
 is taken from Dan. iv. 26, " And whereas they com- 
 manded to leave the stump of the tree, roots," &c. 
 At the 13th verse of this chapter we read of only 
 one Watcher or Holy One coming down from 
 heaven, of whom it is said, " He cried — leave the 
 stump of his roots in the earth." Yet the number 
 is here very remarkably changed from he said to they 
 commanded. And though the words of the curse 
 upon Nebuchadnezzar were pronounced by a 
 \\'atcher or Holy One in the singular, nevertheless, 
 at the close of the speech tiiis matter is declared to 
 be by the decree of the Watcher^ and the command 
 by the holy ones. (ver. 17.) Now it is very certain 
 that the judgments of God are not founded upon the 
 decree or word of angels, or of any created beings. 
 Consequently this W'atciier could be no created 
 angel, but a person in the Lord Jehovah, who con- 
 descended to watch over his people, (Jer. xxxi. 28,) 
 and is called the keeper of Israel that neither slum- 
 bereth nor sleepeth. The change of these verbs and 
 nouns from the singular to the plural can be ac- 
 counted for upon no other principle. It is a case, of 
 which there is no parallel in any language ; and such 
 as can be reconcilable only to the being of God, who 
 is one and more. We are to collect fiom it, that, as 
 in every act of the Godhead there was a consent 
 and concurrence of the persons in the trinity ; and 
 though there was one only that spake it, it was the 
 word and decree of all. 
 
 There is an instance of this sort in the New Tes- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 173 
 
 lament. The disciples of Christ were commanded 
 lo baptize " in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;'' and without doubt, 
 the baptism they administered, was in all cases 
 agreeable to the prescribed form. Nevertheless, we 
 are told of some who were commanded to be bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord, (Acts x. 48,) and 
 particularly in the name of the Lord Jesus, (Acts 
 viii. 16, and xix. 5.) So that there was a strange 
 defect either in the baptism itself, or in the account 
 we have of it ; or the mention of one person in the 
 trinity must imply the presence, name, and autho- 
 rity of all. 
 
 The next argument which shall be adduced to 
 prove the plurality of God, is taken from Dan. v. 18, 
 20, " The Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar a 
 kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour — and 
 THEY took his glory from him." Here again the 
 word they, is a pkin relative to the Most High God. 
 Nor can it be otherwise agreeable to the sense of 
 the history, or the thing itself considered as a matter 
 of fact. For who was it that took away the glory of 
 the king 1 It was not the work of men, but a super- 
 natural act of the Most High God, to whom Nebu- 
 chadnezzar himself hath ascribed it. " Those that 
 walk in pride he is able to abase." 
 
 Li conclusion of this part of the subject 1 will 
 here add a few other of the numerous passages in 
 the Old Testament wherein God is spoken of, or 
 speaks of himself as of more persons than one. Gen. 
 xix. 24, " The Lord rained upon Sodom and Go- 
 15* 
 
174 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITr. 
 
 morrah brimstone and fire fiom the Lord out of 
 heaven." Ps. ex. 1, " The Lord said unto my Lord, 
 sit thou on my right hand," &c. Dan. ix. 17, " Now 
 therefore, O Lord our God, hear the prayer of thy 
 servant — for the Lord's sake." Is. x. 12, " \\'hen 
 tlie Lord hath performed his uhole work upon Jeru- 
 salem, I will punish," &c. Is. xiii. 13, " 1 will shake 
 the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her 
 place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the 
 day of his fierce anger." Is. xxii. 15, 17, 19, " Thus 
 saith the Lord God of hosts — Behold the Lord will 
 carry thee away with a mighty captivity. — And 1 
 will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state 
 shall he pull thee down." Is. Ixiv. 4, " Neither hath 
 the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath pre- 
 pared for him that waiteth for him " Hosea i. 7, " I 
 will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I will 
 save them by the Lord their God." Zech. ii. 10, 11, 
 '' 1 will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord, 
 and many nations shall be joined unto the Lord in 
 that day, and shall be my people, and 1 will dwell 
 m the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the 
 Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee."* 
 
 But we proceed, 2. To prove that this plurality 
 in the Godhead is a precise trinity. The first text 
 which we shall adduce to establish this, is Is. xlviii. 
 16, "And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath 
 sent me." The speaker in this verse can be no other 
 than Christ, who at verse 12th calls himself "the 
 
 • See Jones on the Trinity. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 175 
 
 First and the Last," and does here declare himself 
 to he sent not only hy the Lord God, hut hy the 
 Spirit, — which should be particularly noticed, as 
 our adversaries have objected to the equality of the 
 Son to the Father, because he is said to be sent by 
 him. But if this should prove the inferiority of Christ 
 to the Father, it will also follow that he is for the 
 same reason inferior to the Spirit, which, they say, 
 is a non-entity. 
 
 The next text is Ps. xxxiii. 6, " By the word of 
 the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host 
 of them by the breath of his mouth." Here then 
 is a precise trinity, the Word, the Lord, and the 
 Breath, (or Spirit, as it is in the original,) of his 
 mouth. The Breath or Spirit does undoubtedly 
 mean the third person of the trinity, who is called in 
 Job xxxiii. 4, " The Spirit of God and Breath of the 
 Almighty." 
 
 The next text is found in Is. xxxiv. 16, " Seek ye 
 out of the book of the Lord and read — for my mouth 
 it hath commanded, and his Sijirit it hath gathered 
 them." In these words, there is one person speak- 
 ing of the Spirit of another person, so that the whole 
 trinity is here included. Whether God the Father, 
 or God the Son is to be understood as the speaker, 
 is immaterial. 
 
 The next text is found in Numbers iv. 24, " The 
 Lord bless thee and keep thee, — the l^ord make his 
 face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee, 
 — the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and 
 give thee peace." After this form the High Priest 
 
176 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 was commanded to bless the children of Israel. The 
 name of Jehovah or Lord, is here repeated three 
 times. And parallel to this is the form of Christian 
 baptism, wherein the three personal terms of Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost are not represented as so 
 manydifferent names, butasone name ;the one divine 
 nature of God being no more divided by these three, 
 than by the single name Jehovah thrice repeated. 
 
 If the three articles of this benediction be atten- 
 tively considered, their contents will be found to 
 agree respectively to the three persons taken in the 
 usual order of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost. The Father is the author of blessing and 
 preservation ; grace and illumination are from the 
 Son, by whom we have the light of the knowledge 
 of the love of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. 
 Peace is the gift of the Spirit, whose name is the 
 Comforter, and whose first and last fruit is the work 
 of peace. 
 
 Pelrus Alphonsi, a learned and eminent Jew, 
 converted in the beginning of the twelfth century, 
 wrote a learned treatise against the Jews, wherein 
 he presses them with this Scripture as a plain argu- 
 ment that there are three persons to whom the great 
 and incommunicable name of Jehovah is applied.* 
 
 In 2 Cor. xii. 13, the apostle Paul invokes a 
 blessing upon the Corinthians from the triune God : 
 " May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love 
 
 * Jones on tJie Trinity. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 177 
 
 of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be 
 with you all, Amen/' 
 
 The same apostle also says to the Corinthians, 
 " There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, 
 (here is the third person of the trinity mentioned,) 
 there are diversities. of administration, but the same 
 Lord, (here is the second,) and there are diversities 
 of operations, but it is the same God, (or first person 
 of the trinity,) that vvorketh all in all." 
 
 Once more. — The same apostle in his prayer for 
 the Thessalonians directs his devotions to the ever 
 blessed trinity. "Now God himself, even our Fa- 
 ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto 
 you : and the Lord (i. e. the Holy Ghost) make you 
 to increase and abound one toward another," For 
 that, by "the Lord," we are here to understand the 
 Holy Ghost, is evident from the next verse, " To 
 the end that he may establish your hearts unblama- 
 ble before God, even our Father, at the coming of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ with all liis saints." Here 
 then is a plain enumeration of the three persons of 
 the trinity in this passage. 
 
 The great apostle to the Jews begins his first 
 epistle general to his dispersed brethren with a de- 
 claration of the same article, when he calls them 
 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the 
 Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto 
 obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus." For 
 there, we may observe, that the three persons are 
 not only expressly named, but their distinct employ- 
 ments with reference to man's salvation, are parti- 
 
178 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 cularly specified, while the Father is said to elect, 
 the Spirit to sanctify, and the holy Jesus to shed his 
 blood. Thus it appears, then, that there are three 
 very often occurring in Scripture, under the different 
 appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.* 
 
 One more argument deduced from Scripture, shall 
 close this part of the investigation. In Isaiah vi. 
 1-10, we read as follows : " I saw the Lord sitting 
 upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled 
 the temple ; above it stood the seraphims : and one 
 cried unto another, and said, holy ! Holy ! holy ! is 
 the Lord of hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory. 
 Then said 1, Wo is me ! for mine eyes have seen the 
 king, the Lord of hosts. Also, I heard the voice of 
 the Lord, saying. Whom shall I send, and who will 
 go for us ? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And 
 he said, Go and tell this peoj)le. Hear ye indeed, 
 but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive 
 not: make the heart of this people fat, and make their 
 ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with 
 their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand 
 with their hearts, and convert and be healed." The 
 apostle John, speaking of Christ, refers to this vision 
 and says, " These things said Esaias when he saw 
 his glory and spake of him," John xii. 41. The 
 apostle Paul, referring to the same vision of the pro-" 
 phet, says to the unbelieving Jews, " Well spake the 
 Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 
 saying, Go to this people, and say, hearing ye shall 
 
 * Dr. Wilson's Selected Notes in Ridgley's Divinity. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 179 
 
 hear and not understand ; for the heart of this people 
 is waxed gross," &c. Acts xxviii. 27. Now it is ad- 
 mitted by all, that the Father appeared in this vision, 
 worshipped by the seraphims and styled Jehovah of 
 hosts, who spoke to the prophet ; John says it was 
 Christ, and Paul, the Holy Ghost. This passage, 
 therefore, thus illustrated by divine authority, is a 
 full proof, that Jehovah, who was seen sitting upon 
 a throne and worshipped by the seraphims, was the 
 triune God.* 
 
 • With respect to 1 John v. 7, I have said nothing in the above 
 argument : notwithstanding-, I am fully satisfied that it is genuine. 
 To present the reader with any thing hke a satisfactory view of 
 the argument for and against it, would require more space than 
 I think proper here to occupy for such a purpose ;* though I 
 will sohcit his attention to the following observations, extracted 
 from Dr. Brownlee's review of the argument for its authenticity. 
 
 The most strenuous opposers of Its authenticity are, generally 
 speaking, as decided in their faith in the most Holy Trinity, and 
 in the divinity of our Lord, as those who advocate its authenticity. 
 " There are," says Griesbach, one of the ablest opponents of 
 this verse, "there are so many arguments for the true deity of 
 Christ, that I see not how it can be called in question." [See his 
 Pref. vol. ii. of his First Crit. Echt. of the Greek Test.] 
 
 And, indeed, such is the extent and force of the evidence of 
 the doctrine of the ti-inity, that were this verse relinquished and 
 expunged, it would remain unshaken in all its beauty and vigour. 
 For instance, nothing can be more clear than tlie scriptural evi- 
 dence that there is one God. And nothing can be more clear 
 tlian tliis, tliat the Father sent the Son ; and that, therefore, the 
 Father and the Soil are distinct : that the Father and the Son sent 
 the Holy Ghost : and that, therefore, the Father, the Son, and the 
 
 * The subject is fullj' discussed in Home's Introduction, ?ol. iii. See also 
 "Magazine of tUe Reformed Dutch Church,' vol. 1. 
 
180 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 But we proceed, 3. To remark upon the trinity 
 in unily. 
 
 If tliere be any diversity of nature, or any essential 
 
 Holy Ghost, are distinct persons : that each of these distinct per- 
 sons is called God ; and being- called God, in the language of inspi- 
 ration, eacli of them is the one God. 
 
 That tliis is true of the Fatlier, no one yet has expressed a 
 doubt. He is true God : " The only true God," John xvii. 3. But 
 the Socinian idea has no foundation- here. It is only a quibble. 
 It is not said, as they charge the text with saying, he only is the 
 true God. But he is the only true God. For there is only one God. 
 
 Nor should the least doubt be expressed relative to the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit, when we have these decisive texts ; " The Word 
 was God." "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among- us./' 
 To "lie unto the Holy Ghost is to he unto God." (John i. 1-14, 
 Acts V. 3, 4.) And the same one who is the "Jehovah" of the 
 inspired Isaiah, is the Holy Ghost of the inspired Paul. (Compare 
 Is. vi. 8 and 9, with Acts xxviii. 25.) So evidently is it taught, that 
 each of these persons is the one God. And tliis unity and trinity 
 is distinctly recognized in 1 Cor. xii. 4-12. " There are diver- 
 sities of gifts, but the same Spirit : there are diversities of minis- 
 trations, but the same Lord : there are diversities of operations, but 
 it is the same God that worketh in all." No human intellect could 
 devise language more plain to express this fact held out, that the 
 distinct persons, the Spirit and the Lord, are the same one God. 
 Fid. ut supra. 
 
 And I would solicit my reader's attention to tliis fact: There is 
 no more difficulty in the phrase, " these three are one," than there is 
 in another phrase, in a verse which no man has had the hardihood to 
 challenge, " / and my Father are one," — or I and my Father, we, 
 are one ; ^yai KUt a IIotTXg » i<r/niv. 
 
 If it be proper, at all, to use the word difficulty on such a sub- 
 ject, we must say that it is just as difiicult to comprehend how 
 two distinct persons (distinct in one sense) can be one in another 
 sense, as it is to conceive three distinct persons to be one. And 
 it is certain that there is no more mystery — nor any thing more 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 181 
 
 subordination in tlie persons of the Godhead, it must 
 be revealed to us either in their names or their attri- 
 
 objedionabk, in three distinct persons being <me in essence, than 
 there can be in two being one / 
 
 We arrive now at tliis conclusion, that there is nothing more 
 in this verse under discussion, to excite prejudice, than is to be 
 found in other autlientic passages in God's book, — Nay, it is 
 worthy our devout attention, and serious consideration, that that 
 which is compressed in 1 John v. '7, "there are three," &c. is 
 contained in John's gospel — with this difference, that it is spread 
 out there at great length. The following contrast will show this. 
 — 1, " The Father bears record in heaven." Compare with this 
 John V. 37, &c. " The Father liimself hath borne witness of me." 
 2. " The Word beareth witness in heaven." Compare with this 
 John vili. 14, 18, "Ibe.ar record of myself— my record is true." 
 " I am one who beareth witness of myself" 3. The " Holy Ghost 
 beareth record in heaven." Compare with this John xv. 26. " The 
 Comforter — the Spirit — he shall testify of me." And in reference 
 to tlie last clause of our verse, Christ says, " land the Father are 
 one." — Not it; — unus ; but ev — h Suoy, — one Deity — one sub- 
 stance : or in the words of Paul, "the same God." 
 
 The learned opponents of this text, (1 John v. 7,) lay down 
 this sweeping assertion ; " This verse is 7iot found in a single Greek 
 manuscript written before the sixteenth century." Yet these very 
 individuals grant, both that there are but about 400 MSS. col* 
 lated, and that there are thousands in existence which the eye of 
 the critic has never seen. The Paris hbrary has 202, of which 
 but 49 have been collated. The number in the Vatican library, 
 it is allowed by all the learned, is gi-eat, only 34 of which have 
 been collated. And, to say notliing of other libraries, in the 
 Grand Ducal library at Florence alone, there are, at least, 1000 
 Greek MSS. of the New Testament. And of these only 24 have 
 been collated ! — But this is not all : few, very few of the most an- 
 cient Greek MSS. now exist. In Diocletian's time, many thou- 
 sands were sought out and burned, bj^ the bloodhound's of perse« 
 cution. And in the great fire at Constantinople, A. D. 476, there 
 16 
 
182 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITY. 
 
 but.es, or their acts, for it is by these only that they 
 are, or can possibly be, made known to us in this 
 life. If the Scripture has made no difference in any 
 of these, further than that of a personal distinction, 
 (which we all allow,) we are no longer to doubt 
 that there is a natural or essential unity in the three 
 persons of the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Ghost. I shall therefore proceed to show, that these 
 persons have the same names, the same attributes, 
 the same council or will, and all concur after an inef- 
 fable manner in the same divine acts. So that what 
 the Scripture is falsely supposed to have ascribed to 
 God in one person, will appear to be ascribed, by 
 the same authority, to God in three persons. That, 
 therefore, these persons are but one God ; they are 
 three distinct agents, yet there is but one and the 
 same divine agency. " That which we believe of 
 the glory of the P'ather, the same are we to believe 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any dif- 
 ference or inequality." 
 
 1. The trinity in unity is the one Lord, the Crea- 
 tor of the world. Ps. xxxiii. 6, " By the word of 
 
 perished in the flames 120,000 valuable manuscripts. So that the 
 number collated bears a very small proportion to those which 
 have perished, and those that remain to be searched. And yet 
 from these few remains, our leai-ned antag-onists gravely draw 
 their dogmatical conclusion, that this verse under discussion, is not 
 found in a single Greek MS. icritten before the sixteenth century .'.' 
 It is sincerely to be hoped, that, in order that no more discredit 
 may be brought on criticism and learning' — that they may no 
 longer expose themselves to ridicule, they will give up the whole 
 argument as utterly u-relevant. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 183 
 
 the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host 
 of them by the breath of his mouth." The whole 
 trinity, therefore, created the world ; yet this trinity 
 is but one Lord, for it is written, Is. xliv. 24, " I am 
 the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth 
 the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth by 
 myself." It follows, therefore, that the Word and 
 Spirit did not make the heavens, or that the Father 
 with his Word and Spirit are alone Lord and Crea- 
 tor of all things. 
 
 2. The trinity in unity is one supreme Being or 
 Nature, distinguished from all other beings by the 
 name Jehovah. For the Scriptures give us the fol- 
 lowing position : " The Lord our God is one Jeho- 
 vah," Deut. vi. 4; and again, Ps. Ixxxiii. "Thou, 
 whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High 
 over all the earth." Yet Christ is Jehovah, Jer. 
 xxiii. 6, " This is the name whereby he shall be 
 called, Jehovah our Righteousness." So also is the 
 Spirit, Ezek. viii. 1, "The Lord Jehovah put forth 
 the form of a hand and took me — and the Spirit lift 
 me," &c. Therefore the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost are the one Jehovah. They are three 
 persons, yet they have but one name, and one na- 
 ture. And it is the great advantage of this argument, 
 tliat the name Jehovah is not capable of any such 
 equivocal interpretations as that of God ; it has no 
 plural, is not communicable to any created or de- 
 rived being, and is peculiar to the divine nature, be- 
 cause it is descriptive of it. The opposers of the 
 doctrine of the trinity, endeavour to avoid the force 
 
184 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 of this argument by pretending that there are two 
 Jehovahs, one a distinct being from the other ; but 
 if there are two, tiien it is false that there is a " Most 
 High over all the earth, whose name alone is Je- 
 hovah." 
 
 3. The trinity in unity is the Lord absolutely so 
 called. Rom. x. 12, "The same Lord over all is 
 rich unto all that call upon him." Luke ii. 1 1, "A 
 Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." Rom. xi, 34, 
 " For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or 
 who hath been his counsellor •," which Lord, we 
 learn from the prophet from whence this quotation is 
 made, is the Spirit ; for it is written. Is. xl. 13, " Who 
 hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his 
 counsellor hath taught him." That the person of 
 the Spirit is the Lord, is also plain from 2 Cor. iii. 
 18, " Now the Lord is that Spirit." The trinity in 
 unity is therefore Lord absolutely. 
 
 4. The divine law, and consequently the autho- 
 rity upon which it is founded, is that of a trinity in 
 unity. Rom. vii. 25, "I myself serve the law of 
 God." Gal. vi. 2, " Fulfil the law of Christ." Rom. 
 viii. 2, " The law of the Spirit of life." The divine 
 law, then, is the law of God, Christ, and the Spirit 
 of life. " There is one Lawgiver, who is able to 
 save and to destroy." Therefore these three are 
 one. And here we have the true reason why the 
 Scripture has represented the whole trinity as tempt- 
 ed and resisted by the disobedience of man. For 
 sin being the transgression of the law, which being 
 derived from the undivided authority of the Father, 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 185 
 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, every breach of it is 
 an offence against the trinity. Therefore it is writ- 
 ten, Deut. vi. 16, "Tiiou shalt not tempt the Lord 
 thy God." 1 Cor. x. 9, "Neither let us tempt 
 Christ." Acts v. 9, " How is it that ye have agreed 
 together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord ?" 
 
 5. The power of God is the power of a trinity in 
 unity. Eph. iii. 7, " The grace of God given to me 
 by the effectual working of his power." 2 Cor. xii. 
 9, " That the power of Christ may rest upon me." 
 Rom. XV. 19, " Signs and wonders by the power of 
 the Spirit of God." The Scripture, therefore, has 
 ascribed divine power, and that in the same exercise 
 of it, (the ministry and miracles of St. Paul,) to 
 Christ and the Spirit in common with God the Fa- 
 ther. So that when all glory and power is ascribed 
 to the only wise God, what God can that be but the 
 trinity ? Upon this principle the Scripture is easily 
 reconciled ; upon any other it is unintelligible. 
 
 6. The trinity, in unity is eternal. Rom. xvi. 25, 
 " The ministry made manifest according to the com- 
 mandment of the everlasting God." Rev. xxii. 13, 
 " 1 (Jesus) am the first and the last." Heb. ix. 14, 
 " Who through the eternal Spirit." 
 
 5. The trinity in unity is omnipresent. Jer. xxiii. 
 24, " Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the 
 Lord ?" Eph. i. 22, " The fulness of him (that is 
 Christ) that filleth all in all." Ps. cxxxix. 7, 
 " Whither shall 1 go from thy Spirit ? — If I go up 
 into heaven thou art there ; if I go down into hell, 
 thou art there." 
 
 16* 
 
186 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY- 
 
 8. The trinity in unity created mankind. Ps. c. 3, 
 " The Lord he is God, it is he that hath made us." 
 John i. 3, " By him (i. e. Christ) were all things 
 made." Job xxxiii. 4, " The Spirit of God hath 
 made me." 
 
 9. The trinity in unity quicken the dead. John 
 V. 2, " The Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
 eneth them." John v. 2, "The Son quickeneth 
 whom he will." John vi. 63, " It is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth." 
 
 10. The trinity in unity sanctify the children of 
 God. Jude 1. " To them that are sanctified by God 
 the Father." Heb. ii. 11, "He that sanctifieth 
 and they who are sanctified are all one, for which 
 cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 
 Rom. XV. 16. "Being sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 11. The trinity in unity give a commission and 
 authority to preach the gospel. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6, 
 " Our sufficiency is of God, who hath made us able 
 ministers." 1 Tim. i. 12, "Jesus Christ — counted 
 me faithful, putting me into the ministry." Acts xx. 
 28, " Take heed therefore — to all the flock over the 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." 
 
 12. The trinity in unity reveal to us the divine 
 will. Phil. iii. 15, " God shall reveal even this unto 
 you." Gal. i. 12, "Neither was 1 taught it, but by 
 revelation of Jesus Christ." Luke ii. 26, " It was 
 revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost." So again, 
 Heb. i. 1 , " God who spake unto the fathers by the 
 prophets." " Ye seek a proof of Christ, speaking 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 187 
 
 in me." Mark xiii. 11, " It is not ye that speak, but 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 1 3. The trinity in unity raised the body of Christ 
 from the grave. 1 Cor. vi. 4, " God hath both rais- 
 ed up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own 
 power." John ii. 29, " Destroy this temple, and in 
 three days I will raise it up." 1 Pet. iii. 18, "Christ 
 — being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by 
 the Spirit."* 
 
 Much more might be said on this subject ; and 
 very many other scriptural arguments advanced 
 in support of the doctrine of the trinity, but what 
 has been already advanced is deemed sufficient to 
 establish it from Scripture. 
 
 * Jones on the Trinity. 
 
( 188 ) 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS BELIEVED AND TAUGHT THE 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 In support of this proposition we observe, 1 . That 
 their writings declare that they held this article of 
 faith. 
 
 The reader who has attentively perused Chapter 
 V. Part II. of this work must have observed that 
 this is the fact. Nevertheless, to save my reader the 
 trouble of re-perusing that chapter, I will briefly no- 
 tice some of the instances wherein it appears that 
 they thus believed. 
 
 Ignatius advises his followers to " study to be con- 
 formed to the pattern of our Lord and of his apos- 
 tles, that they may prosper both in body and in spi- 
 rit, and in faith and charity in the Father, and in the 
 Son, and in the Holy Ghost."* 
 
 Theophilus speaks thus, " When the Father said. 
 Let us make man in our image after our likeness, he 
 spake to no other but to his own Word, and his own 
 Wisdom, that is the Holy Ghost." These he styles 
 expressly " A trinity in the Godhead." 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus speaks as follows ; " Let 
 
 * This passage, I find, was not before quoted. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 139 
 
 US give thanks to the only Father and Son, to the 
 Son and the Father, to the Son our Teacher and 
 Master with the Holy Ghost ; one in all respects ; 
 in whom are all things, by whom all things are ; one 
 by whom is eternal existence, whose is the glory 
 and the ages, who is perfect Good, the perfect Beau- 
 ty, all-wise, all-just ; to whom be glory now and for 
 ever. Amen." 
 
 Tertullian, in his treatise against Praxeas, speaks 
 clearly and pointedly of a trinity in unity, of the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet one God. And he 
 declares, not only that those around him believed 
 this, but that it obtained from the beginning, before 
 any former heretics, and much more antecedently to 
 Praxeas, who was of yesterday. The following is 
 a small specimen of his language. " The Father is 
 God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, 
 and every one of them is God ; the name of the Fa- 
 ther is Most High, Lord of hosts, and God Almigh- 
 ty, &c. and these names belong to the Son like- 
 wise."" 
 
 Origen says, " When you confess one God, and 
 say in the same confession, that the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost are one God, how perplexed, 
 how inextricable does this seem to the unbelieving ; 
 how difficult do these things appear, because they 
 themselves are in an error. But do thou hold fast, 
 nor entertain a doubt concerning this faith, know- 
 ing that God hath showed this way of faith unto 
 thee." And speaking of the ordinance of baptism, 
 he says, " When we come to the grace of baptism. 
 
190 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 renouncing all other Gods and Lords, we acknow- 
 ledge one God only, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost." Once more, " I believe that faith of 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is 
 believed hj all who are united to the church of Gody 
 
 If tjiis testimony is not sufficient to satisfy the 
 reader, let him turn back to Chapter V. Part 11. and 
 read, in addition to the above, the testimony of Cy- 
 prian, Lactantius, and Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
 
 1 will here add the testimony to this doctrine 
 deduced from the " Ascension of Isaiah,'"* an 
 apocryphal work, which, as well as the book of 
 Enoch before mentioned, were rescued from utter 
 oblivion by the persevering researches of the Rev. 
 Dr. Laurence. It was written by some Jew, who 
 may have been a convert to Christianity about the 
 close of the year, A. D. 68, or the beginning of 69. 
 In matters of faith it is indeed of no value, but hav- 
 ing been written so early, it is good evidence of the 
 practice, worship, and opinions, which existed at the 
 era of its composition. Though these, like all other 
 opinions, must ultimately be brought to the test of 
 Scripture and rational criticism. Thus the author 
 of this production has distinctly spoken of the mira- 
 culous incarnation of Jesus Christ, and of his prior 
 existence with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, in 
 the same manner as the universal church of Christ 
 has ever done. The ninth chapter is particularly 
 worthy of notice on account of the testimony which 
 
 • See Home's Introduction, vol. I. 
 
A PLEA rOR THE TRINITY. 191 
 
 it affords of the divine worship of Jesus Christ and 
 of the Holy Ghost, by Christians, only thirty-seven 
 years after the resurrection and ascension of our Sa- 
 viour. In this chapter there is a very particular re- 
 lation of a vision which the author represents the 
 prophet Isaiah to have had of the Lord Christ, 
 whom a host of saints and angels were in the very 
 act of worshipping and glorifying ; and the prophet, 
 who had before been forbidden to worship an angel, 
 is, by the angelic conductor of the scene, expressly 
 directed to worship Christ. Nor is an inferior de- 
 gree of exaltation ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Him, 
 as well as Jesus Christ, (who in this tract is called 
 the Beloved, the Elect, and the Son of God,) all the 
 saints and angels are said to apj)roach, worship, and 
 glorify. The following extract, continuing from the 
 twenty-seventh to the forty-second verse of the chap- 
 ter referred to, will furnish at once the evidence and 
 the proof of the preceding remarks ; " Then 1 beheld 
 one standing whose glory surpassed that of all ; 
 whose glory was great and wonderful. And while 
 1 was contemplating him, all the saints and angels 
 whom 1 had seen, advanced towards him ; Adam, 
 Abel, Seth, and all the saints of old approached, 
 worshipped, and glorified him, all with united voice. 
 I myself also glorified with them, and my glori- 
 fying resembled theirs. Immediately all the angels 
 approached, worshipped, and glorified. He then be- 
 came changed, and appeared like an angel. When 
 instantly that angel, who was conducting me, said, 
 Worship him! And 1 worshipped. The angel add- 
 
192 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITV. 
 
 ed, THIS IS THE Lord of all glory, (i. e. Je- 
 sus Christ,) WHICH thou hast beheld. And 
 while 1 was still conversing, 1 beheld another glo- 
 rious being, who was similar to him in appearance, 
 and whom the saints approached, worshipped, and 
 glorified, while 1 myself also glorified with them. 1 m- 
 mediately also the angels approached and worship- 
 ped. Then I beheld the Lord, and a second angel, 
 both of whom were standing ; the second which 1 
 saw was upon the left hand of my Lord. I asked 
 who this was? My conductor said to me. Worship 
 him, for this is the angel of the Holy Spirit who 
 speaks by thee, and other saints. Then the eyes of 
 my soul being opened, I beheld a great glory ; but 
 immediately became incapable of seeing, as well as 
 the angel who was with me, as well as all the an- 
 gels whom I had before seen worshipping my Lord. 
 Nevertheless, 1 perceived that the saints with great 
 strength beheld that glory. JNly Lord now approach- 
 ed me, and the angel of the Spirit, and said. 
 Behold, it has been permitted thee to see God, 
 and on thy account strength has been given to 
 the angel who is with thee." In another part of 
 the same work, where Isaiah and the rest of the 
 prophets are represented as hearing the voice of 
 the Holy Spirit, it is added, (chapter vi. 8, 9.) 
 " And immediately when they heard it, they all 
 worshipped the voice of the Holy Spirit, all wor- 
 shipped upon their knees, and glorified the God of 
 righteousness, the exalted one who exists in the 
 world above ; him who dwells on high : the holy 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 193 
 
 One, him who resides in the saints. Giving glory to 
 him, because he had thus graciously granted an en- 
 trance to another world, had graciously granted it 
 to man.'" On the preceding passages the learned 
 editor of " the Ascension of Isaiah" remarks, with 
 equal force and truth, that, " should not even these 
 extracts satisfy those who, in support of a favourite 
 hypothesis, advance every thing, but retract nothing, 
 proof still more convincing may be adduced. For 
 the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinctly recog- 
 nized as objects of adoration in heaven jointly with 
 the Father. It is said, that " all invoked the first, 
 the Father, and his beloved, the Christ, and the 
 Holy Spirit, with united voice." Stronger and more 
 decisive testimony it is impossible to adduce for the 
 fact, that the first Christians did adore the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as God the 
 Father. 
 
 IL The Jews, supposing the primitive Christians 
 to be tritheists, were accustomed to dispute with 
 them and to charge them with believing in more 
 Gods than one. In answering them, the Christians 
 were used to reply that they did not believe in three 
 distinct Gods, but that in the Godhead there were 
 three distinct Hypostases, and they proved this by 
 nine arguments deduced from the Old Testament. 
 They are the following,— Gen. i. 26, xi. 7, xxxv. 7, 
 where Elohim, that is, the Gods appeared to Jacob, 
 and Deut. iv. 7, " What nation has the Gods so near 
 them?" 
 
 17 
 
194 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITY. 
 
 2 Sam. vii. 23, " What nation is like Israel, uiiom 
 the Gods went to redeem ?" 
 
 Dan. vii. 9, " Till the thrones or seats were set, 
 and Ancient of days did sit," &,c. 
 
 Exod. xxiv. 1, When God bid Moses to come up 
 to the Lord. 
 
 Exod. xxiii. 21, When God, having promised to 
 send his angel, bids them beware of him, because 
 he would not pardon their transgressions, for God's 
 name was in him. 
 
 And, Gen, xix. 24, " The Lord rained upon 
 Sodom, fire from the Lord." 
 
 The manner in which the ancient Jews answered 
 these objections is of no importance to us in this 
 place. The object for which I have produced them 
 is to show, that, according to the testimony of the 
 Jewish church, the primitive Christians held a plu- 
 rality in the divine essence ; and this appears when 
 we consider that in the apostolic age, the Jewish 
 doctors were divided amongst themselves, as to the 
 manner in which these objections should be an- 
 swered. 
 
 We find R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, 
 giving directions how to answer the objections 
 (which the Christians urged against the Jews) drawn 
 from the Old Testament. 
 
 R. Meir endeavours, in his sermons, to answer 
 the objection taken out of Gen. xix. 24, which the 
 Christians made use of against the Jews. Now R. 
 Meir was born under Nero. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 195 
 
 They forbade those who were not well acquainted 
 with the controversy, to dispute with the Chris- 
 tians. Their directions were, " Let him dispute with 
 heretics that can answer them. But if a man 
 cannot answer them, let him forbear disputing." 
 For R. Eliezer, who lived under Trajan, had ob- 
 serv^ed that the reading of the Old Testament made 
 the Jews turn heretics, i. e. Christians ; himself 
 was suspected of inclining that way.* According 
 therefore to the testimony of the Jewish church, the 
 primitive Christians held a plurality and trinity in 
 the Godhead. 
 
 Jn support of this proposition we also observe, in 
 the lit. place, that the ancient heathen writers 
 give testimony that the primitive Christians held 
 the doctrine of the trinity. I will here mention but 
 one instance, and refer the reader to Part 11. Chap- 
 ter VI. of this work. The testimony is that of 
 Lucian, who lived seventy-six years after the apos- 
 tolic age. His testimony is very explicit. Per- 
 sonating a Christian catechising a catechumen, he 
 makes the catechumen ask, " by whom shall I 
 swear V The Christain instructer replies, " By the 
 God that reigns on high, the great immortal heaven- 
 ly God, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit 
 proceeding from the Father, one in three and three 
 in one." 
 
 And again. " Thou art teaching me arithmetic," 
 says Critias, when the secret of the mysteries is im- 
 parted to him ; " thy oath is purely arithmetical : 
 
 • Jewish Church against the Unitarians, chap. 20. 
 
196 A PLEA FOR THE TRINIXr. 
 
 verily, in the science of numeration, thou rivalest 
 Nicomachus the Gerasenian. 1 know not what thou 
 art saying. 'One, three; three, one!' Certainly 
 thou art dealing with the tetractys, or the ogdoad, 
 or the triad ol" Pythagoras." 
 
 It is certain that this could not have been object- 
 ed by liucian, and other adversaries of the Christian 
 religion, if the doctrine of the trinity had not been 
 believed in, and taught by, the primitive Christians. 
 
 But IV. and lastly, we observe, that all who did 
 not hold the doctrine of the trinity were condemned 
 by the primitive Christian churches as heretics. 
 
 For particulars, that 1 may not be unnecessarily 
 tedious, 1 must refer the reader to Part II. Chap- 
 ter VII. of this work, and to the commencement of 
 this chapter. 1 shall barely notice the principal 
 heretics. The first is IVJarcion, who in positive 
 terms denied the doctrine of the trinity. Concern- 
 ing him, the eloquent Tertullian says, " he departed 
 from the faith and the church of Christ." He was 
 also condemned by Irenseus, Justin Martyr and Poly- 
 carp. Cyprian also wrote concerning him in the 
 following manner : " Our Lord after his resurrec- 
 tion, instructing his disciples how they should bap- 
 tize, says : Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Here he gives an 
 intimation of the trinity, in whose sacrament the na- 
 tions were to be baptized. Does Marcion believe 
 the trinity ? Does he believe the same Father, the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 197 
 
 Creator as we believe in? — Marcion and all other 
 heretics held a very different faith." 
 
 Noetius, and after him Sabellius, rejected the 
 distinction of persons in the Godhead, and avowed 
 that the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
 were only three names of one and the same person. 
 'Tis needless to say they were immediately expelled 
 from the church, and their doctrines stigmatized as 
 heretical. 
 
 Beryllus, bishop of Bozrah, whose sentiments 
 were nearly the same as those of Noetius, received 
 the same treatment. 
 
 JVJacedonius, bishop of Constantinople, denied the 
 personality of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence 
 the trinity of persons in the Godhead, for which he 
 was deposed and condemned as a heretic, and a few 
 yeaWWiiferwards, by a general council convened by 
 order of Theodosus, his sentiments were still more 
 solemnly examined and condemned. 
 
 17 
 
( 198 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE JEWISH CHURCH, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER CHRIST, 
 HELD A PLURALITY AND TRINITY IN THE GODHEAD. 
 
 In Chapter IV. Part II. sufficient has been said 
 to show that the ancient Jews beheved in a plu- 
 raUty in the divine essence ; and I must request the 
 reader to take particular notice of one argument 
 there advanced, viz. that the name Jehovah, ac- 
 cording to tlie Jewish commentators and para- 
 phrasts, properly belongs to the Word or Logos (Xo^o?); 
 |.^^^ yet according to the same testimony, the *4Mi^ Je- 
 hovah is not communicable to any creature. Never- 
 theless I will add a few other testimonies to the 
 same point. 
 
 The Chaldee paraphrasts ascribe the creation of 
 the world to the Word : and that Abraham believed 
 the Word, and it was imputed to him for righleous- 
 / ness ; that the Word brought Abraham out of Chal- 
 dea. Gen xv. 7, and commanded him to sacrifice. 
 Gen. XV. 9, and gave him the prophecy, ver. 1 3. 
 
 In the Targum of Onkelos on Exodus, the like 
 notions are to be found. He says that " It was the 
 Word that redeemed the children of Israel out of 
 Egypt," Exodus xv. 2. And that it was the Word 
 against whom Israel murmured in sin, Ex. xvi. 8. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 199 
 
 The Jerusalem Targum says, the Word made 
 man after his image, Gen. i. 26. 
 
 The sentiments of Philo are aheady known. (See 
 Chapter IV. Part II.) The Chaldee paraphrasts 
 paraphrase the text, Gen. iii. 8, " And they heard 
 the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden,'* 
 thus, " They heard the Word of the Lord God walk- 
 ing,*' &c. Several of the Jewish commentators say 
 that " It was the voice which was walking." They 
 paraphrase Ps. ex. 1. "The Lord said unto his 
 Word," instead of" my Lord," as it is in the origi- 
 nal. 
 
 The Jewish commentators say, " There are three 
 degrees in the mystery of Aleim, orElohiin (in Eng- 
 lish, God), and these degrees they call persons. 
 They say, " they are all one, and cannot be separat- 
 ed." Deut. vi. 4, is thus rendered by the au- 
 thor of the Jewish book Zohar, " The Lord, and 
 our God, and the Lord are one." In his commen- 
 tary on this passage the author says, " The Lord or 
 Jehovah is the beginning of all things, and the per- 
 fection of all things, and he is called the Father. 
 The other, our God, is the depth or fountain of 
 sciences, and he is called the Son. The other or 
 Lord, he is called the Holy Ghost, who proceeds 
 from them both. Therefore he says. Hear, O Israel, 
 that is, join together this Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, and make him one essence, one sub- 
 stance ; for whatever is in the one is in the other. 
 
200 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 He hath been the whole, he is tiie whole, and he 
 will be the whole."* 
 
 The book of Enoch, quoted by the apostle, Jude 
 14, 15 verses, is very explicit on this point. Jn 
 chap. Ix. 13 and 14 verses, allusion is made to the 
 Messiah or elect One, and also to another divine 
 person or power, both of whom, under the joint de- 
 nomination of Lords, are stated to have been over 
 the water at the period of the creation. The words 
 are as follows : " He, (the elect One) shall call to 
 every power of the heavens, to all the holy above, 
 and to the power of God ; the cherubim, the sera- 
 phim, and the oraphim, all the angels of the power, 
 and all the angels of the Lords, namely, of the elect 
 One, and the other power, who upon the earth were 
 over the water on that day, shall raise their united 
 voice," &c. In this passage, an obvious reference 
 occurs to the first verse of Genesis, in which it is 
 said, that " the Spirit of God, moved upon the face 
 of the waters." Here then w^e have, not merely the 
 declaration of a plurality, but that of a precise and 
 distinct trinity of persons under the supreme appella- 
 tion of Lords ; two of whom, denominated the elect 
 One, and the other (divine) power, are represented 
 as not less engaged than the Lord of Spirits himself 
 in the formation of the world. And it should be 
 added that upon these, as upon more immediate 
 agents in the work of creation, a particular class of 
 
 * "D wight's Theology," and ''Jewish Church against the 
 Unitarians." R. Judah Monis's "Whole Truth." 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 201 
 
 angels is mentioned as appropriately attendant. 
 There is no allegory here ; but a plain, clear allu- 
 sion to a doctrine, which, if it had not formed part 
 of the popular creed at the time, would not have 
 been intelligible. Three Lords are enumerated ; 
 the Lord of the elect One, and the Lord of the 
 other power; the two latter of whom, as well as the 
 former, are described as creators. An enumeration 
 which evidently implies the acknowledgment of 
 three distinct persons participating in the name and 
 the power of the Godhead. Such, therefore, from 
 the evidence before us, appears to have been the 
 doctrine of the Jews respecting the divine nature, 
 antecedently to the rise and promulgation of Chris- 
 tianity.* 
 
 To these explicit and unquestionable testimonies 
 1 shall now add a collection of others of a different 
 nature, but scarcely less decisive. In the concise his- 
 tory of creation, Moses says, more than thirty times, 
 Aleim, that is, Gods created. The noun being 
 plural, and the verb singular in every instance. 
 These, the Jewish paraphrasts explain by Jehovah, 
 his Word, that is, his Son, and his Wisdom, or Holy 
 Spirit ; which they call three degrees. These three, 
 they assert, are one, and declare them to be one in- 
 separable Jehovah. This doctrine the Jews have 
 exhibited in a variety of methods clear, convincing, 
 and impressive. These I shall now exhibit after 
 having premised a remarkable sentence from Rabbi 
 Judah Hakkadosh, or Judah the Holy, in which the 
 
 • Home's Introduction, vol. i. 
 
202 A PLEA FOR THE TRIXITV. 
 
 doctrine of the Jewish church is declared in the 
 most explicit manner. The sentence is this, " God 
 the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, 
 three in unity, one in trinity."* 
 
 With this preface 1 observe, 1. That the form of 
 blessing is prescribed in Numbers vi. 24 — 26, " Je- 
 hovah bless thee," &c. This blessing, according to 
 Rabbi Manachen, was pronounced in a different 
 accent, during the utterance of each part. And, ac- 
 cording to an account given by two other Rabbies, 
 with the hand lifted up, and the three first fingers of 
 the hand extended, the little finger at the same time 
 closed. This they say was done to express a triad 
 or trinity in the Godhead. 
 
 2. The Jews anciently used a solemn symbol of 
 
 • Mr. Jared Sparks, {Inquiry, p. 152,) "/u// of the most un- 
 suspecting simplicity y" and taking for granted tliat all which has 
 been asserted by his venerable fathers in Unitarianism is strictly true, 
 uses the followmg language. " No history, eitlier sacred or pro- 
 fane, acquaints us with a single fact, from which it can be inferred 
 that the Jews had any knowledge of a threefold nature in tlie Dei- 
 ty. On the contrary, all liistory is against such an inference ; and 
 the demonstrable certainty, that these people, for whose light and 
 improvement the Old Testament was expressly designed, never 
 had tlie remotest suspicion of such a doctrine being contained in 
 their sacred books, is the clearest possible evidence, tliat it is not 
 plainly taught there, whatever may be now deduced from types, 
 and shadows, and dark sayings, and Hebrew idioms, and double 
 meanings." 
 
 Rev, Wm. Kinkade, another half-learned Unitarian before men- 
 tioned, in his "Bible Doctrine," p. 65, hkewise copies nearly the 
 same language from his great progenitors. 
 
 The reader will deduce the inference for himself, and make his 
 own comments. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 203 
 
 the Deity, which they called Sephiroth, a word com- 
 monly signifying enumerations, but used by their 
 learned men to denote splendours. These are some- 
 times exhibited in the form of a tree with its branches 
 extended, and sometimes by ten concentric circles ; 
 that figure being the symbol of perfection. All these 
 perfections are represented as issuing from the su- 
 preme and infinite source, as light from the sun. 
 Of this tree Rabbi Schabte says, " There are three 
 degrees, the Root, the Stem, and the Branches, and 
 these three are one." By these he intends that the 
 infinite source and the other two degrees are one 
 and inseparable. In the symbol of the circles, the 
 three superior circles are called the Crown, the Wis- 
 dom, and Understanding. These, Rabbi Isaac, a 
 famous and learned Jew, says, " are the highest nu- 
 merations that possess one throne, on which sits the 
 holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts." Two other 
 celebrated Jewish doctors say, " These are the 
 Voice, the Spirit, and the Word, and these are one." 
 And Rambam, the most learned of them all, says, 
 " The crown is the primordial Spirit of the living 
 Aleim, and his wisdom is a Spirit from the Spirit 
 and the understanding waters ; from the Spirit and 
 between these, though thus distinguished, there is 
 no distinction ; because the end is annexed to the 
 beginning, and the beginning to the end, and the 
 middle is comprehended by them." 
 
 The ancient Jews applied the three first letters of 
 the incommunicable name Jehovah, to denote the 
 three superior splendours, viz. Jod, He, Vau ; and 
 
204 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the second He, or tlie last letter denoted, according 
 to them, the two natures of the second splendour 
 or person. 
 
 3. The ancient Jews wrote the name of God sym-^ 
 bolically, by including three Jods within a circle, 
 and subscribing under the Jods and within the cir- 
 cle, the vowel Kametz. The circle was the figure 
 denoting perfection, the three Jods were the begin- 
 ning letter of the word Jehovah thrice repeated, to 
 denote the three persons in the Godhead. The Ka- 
 metz was the point of perfection, and denoted the 
 same thing with the circle, and the unity of the di- 
 vine essence. 
 
 4. Another method used by the Jews to denote 
 God, was to include in a square three radii, or points, 
 disposed in the form of a crown. The crown seems 
 to have denoted the dignity and supremacy of the 
 object designed ; and the number three, the three 
 persons in the GodJiead. 
 
 5. The letter Schin was another emblem of the 
 Most High in use among the Jews. This letter, 
 which is the first in the word Shaddai,the Almighty, 
 one of the scriptural names of God, is formed of three 
 branches alike in size and figure, especially as writ- 
 ten in the ancient or Samaritan character, and unit- 
 ed in one stem. This letter was distinctly "written 
 on those phylacteries which the Jews wore on their 
 heads. 
 
 6. The equilateral triangle with three small cir- 
 cles at the angles, and the letter Jod inscribed over 
 against the upper angle, was another Jewish sym- 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 205 
 
 bol of the Deity. The three sides indicated the three 
 persons of the Godhead ; and the three equal lengths 
 of their sides, their equality ; wiiile the Jod was a 
 direct proof that Jehovah was intended by the em- 
 blem. The three circles probably denoted the per- 
 fection of the persons. The Jews also delineated the 
 sphere, or representation of the universe as holden by 
 three hands, two at the sides and one at the bottom. 
 Near the hands were inscribed the three Hebrew let- 
 ters Aleph, Daleth, and Schin ; the initials of the 
 three Hebrew words for truth, judgment, and peace. 
 The same letters were also inscribed immediately 
 above the sphere. 
 
 Such is the testimony of the Jewish church con- 
 cerning this subject : composed on the one hand by 
 direct declarations, and on the other of symbols 
 equally definite and certain, especially as explained 
 by their own commentators. These prove beyond a 
 reasonable debate, that the Jewish church iield uni- 
 formly the doctrine of the trinity. The later Jews 
 have, indeed, denied it ; but to this denial they 
 have been led, merely, by their hatred to Christi- 
 anity.* 
 
 It cannot be reasonably urged against what has 
 been said with respect to the testimony of the an- 
 cient Jewish church, that the Jews have formal dis- 
 putes against the doctrine of the trinity. For we 
 must remember, 1. That all their disputes with the 
 Christians are built on this wrong bottom, that the 
 
 Dwight's Theology. 
 18 
 
206 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Christians are tritheists, and deny the unity of God. 
 2. That almost ail tliose who dispute with the Chris- 
 tians on this head, contradict themselves in their 
 writings that are not polemical, but are drawn up in 
 cool blood, out of the heat of dispute ; of which Sa- 
 adiah Haggaon is a proof. 3. The study of their 
 rites having been the great business of the Jews for 
 many centuries, it hath happened that their greatest 
 authors have applied themselves but little to the stu- 
 dy of the tradition concerning their doctrines. In 
 Maimonides, one of the greatest men the Jews ever 
 had, we have an example of it. He tells us, that it 
 was towards the declension of his life before he could 
 turn himself to study their traditions ; and he la- 
 ments his misfortune, in that he could not begin this 
 study sooner. This is related by R. Ehas Chaiim, 
 who says he had it from a letter of Maimonides to 
 one of his scholars.* 
 
 • Jewish Church against the Unitariajis. 
 
207 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE HEATHEN NATIONS IN ALL PARTS OF THE AVORLD HELD 
 THE DOCTRINE OF A TRIAD IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 This is an important point. For if they had a 
 knowledge of this doctrine, (and it shall soon ap- 
 pear that they had) they must have received that 
 knowledge from revelation ; because, they could 
 never have discovered it by the light of nature, our 
 opponents "themselves being judges." 
 
 Dr. Priestley in his " Comparison of the Institutions 
 of Moses ivitk those of the Hindoos^''' section 1. page 
 7, has the following quotation from the celebrated 
 infidel Mr. Langles ; " Many thousand years before 
 these people (among which are included the Egyp- 
 tians, Jews, and Chinese,) formed themselves into 
 societies, or even thought of forming a religion, the 
 civilized Indians adored the Supreme Being, eter- 
 nal, almighty, and all-wise, divided into three per- 
 sons." The doctor very justly observes that this was 
 said by Mr. Langles, evidently to undervalue the 
 religion of the Jews, and he shows that the oldest 
 accounts of the Hindoo nation go no farther back 
 than the deluge mentioned in the books of Moses ; 
 and consequently their religious institutions must be 
 posterior to that event. The reader will not sus- 
 
208 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITV. 
 
 pect me of having adcluced the above quotation, be- 
 cause I believe the wliole of Mr. Langles' assertion ; 
 I have produced it for the purpose of showing that in 
 the opinion of this distinguished infidel, the ancient 
 Hindoos worshipped a triune God. 
 
 But to proceed 1. It is clear that the Hindoos 
 have, from the most remote antiquit}^ holden a triad 
 in the divine nature. The name of the Godhead 
 among these people is Brahme. The names of the 
 three persons in the Godhead are Brahma, Veeshnu 
 and Seeva. Brahma they considered as the Father, 
 Veeshnu as the Mediator, whom they assert to have 
 been incarnate, and Seeva as the destroyer and re- 
 generator ; destruction being, in their view, nothing 
 but the dissolution of preceding forms, for the pur- 
 pose of renewing the same being in new ones. The 
 three faces, of Brahma, Veeshnu, and Seeva, they 
 always formed on one body having six hands, or 
 two to each person. This method of delineating 
 the Godhead is ancient beyond tradition, univer- 
 sal, uncontro verted, and carried every where in 
 their places of worship ; particularly in the celebra- 
 ted cavern in the island of Elephanta. 
 
 2. Equally well known is the Persian Triad, the 
 names of which were Ormusd, Mither, and Ahri- 
 man ; called by the Greeks, Oromasdes, Mithras, 
 and Arimanius. Among them, as well as among 
 the Hindoos, the second person in the triad is called 
 Mediator, and regarded as the great agent in the 
 present world. In the oracles ascribed to Zerdush 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINIXr. 209 
 
 or Zoroaster, the famous Persian philosopher, are 
 the following declarations. " Where the eternal 
 Monad is, it amplifies itself and generates a duality." 
 " A triad of Deity shines forth throughout the whole 
 world." " And the Father said, that all things 
 should be divided into three, whose will assented, 
 and all things were divided." " And there ap- 
 peared in this triad, Virtue, Wisdom, and Truth, 
 who knew all things." " The Father performed all 
 things and delivered them over to the second mind, 
 whom the nations of men commonly suppose to be 
 the first." The third person speaking of himself 
 says, " 1 Pysche or Soul dwell next to the paternal 
 mind, animating all things." 
 
 3. The Egyptians from the earliest antiquity like- 
 wise acknowledged a triad, whom they named 
 Osiris, Cneph, and Phtha, and afterwards Osiris, 
 Isis, and Typhon. These persons they denoted by 
 the symbols of light, fire, and spirit. They repre- 
 sented them also on the doors and other parts of 
 their sacred buildings in three figures, of a globe, a 
 wing, and a serpent. Abenephus, an Arabian wri- 
 ter, says, that " by these, the Egyptians shadowed 
 God in three forms." One of the Egyptian funda- 
 mental axioms of theology, as given by Damascius 
 and cited by Cudvvorth, is, "There is one principle 
 of all things praised under the name of unknown 
 darkness, and this thrice repeated." In the books 
 ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus is the following 
 passage. " There hath ever been one great intel- 
 18* 
 
210 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 ligent light which hath always illumined the mind, 
 and their union is nothing else but the Spirit, which 
 is the bond of all things."" Here light and mind are 
 spoken of as two persons, and the Spirit as the third, 
 all declared to be eternal. 
 
 4. The Orphic Theology, the most ancient re- 
 corded in Grecian history, taught the same doctrine. 
 In the abridgment of this theology by Timotheusthe 
 Chronographer, are found its most important and 
 characteristical doctrines. Of these the fundamen- 
 
 J.al one is, that " an eternal incomprehensible being 
 exists, who is the Creator of all things." This su- 
 preme, and eternal Being is styled in this theology, 
 Light, Counsel, Life. Suidas, speaking of these three, 
 says," They express only one, and the same power." 
 Timotheus says further, that Orpheus declared " all 
 things to have been made by one Godhead in three 
 names, or rather by these names of one Godhead." 
 Proclus, a Platonic philosopher, says, that Orpheus 
 taught " the existence of one God who is the ruler 
 over all things; and that this one God is three 
 minds, three Kings ; he who is ; he who has, or 
 possesses; and he who beholds." These three 
 minds he declares to be the same with the triad of 
 Orpheus, viz. Phanes, Uranus, and Chronus. 
 
 5. The Greek philosophers, also, extensively ac- 
 knowledged a triad. Particularly Pythagoras, who 
 styled God, the Unity, and that which is alone, and 
 also the good. " From this eternal JNlonad," says 
 Pythagoras, " there sprang an infinite duality ;" that 
 is, from him who existed above, two proceeded, 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 211 
 
 who were infinite. Plato also held a triad ; and 
 named them " the Good ; Mind, or Word ; and the 
 Soul of the WoHd." Parmenides, the founder of the 
 Eleatic philosoplty says, " The Deity is one and 
 many." Simplicius, commenting on Plato's ex- 
 hibition of the doctrines of Parmenides, says, that 
 " these words were a description of the true, or ori- 
 ginal existence," and Plotinus says, that Parmeni- 
 des acknowledged three divine unities subordinated. 
 The first unity he calls the most perfectly and pro- 
 perly One ; the second One Many ; and the third 
 One and Many." Plotinus further says, that Par- 
 menides acknowledged a triad of original persons. 
 Plotinus speaks of God as being, " the One, the 
 Mind, and the Soul," which he calls the original or 
 principal persons. Aurelius calls these persons 
 three Kings, and three Creators. Numenius, a fa- 
 mous Pythagorean philosopher, acknowledged a 
 triad. The second person, he calls the son of the 
 first, and the third, he speaks of as also descending 
 from the first. 
 
 6. In the empires of Thibet and Tangut, a triune 
 God is constantly acknowledged in the popular re- 
 ligion. Medals, having the image of such a God 
 stamped on them, are given to the people by the 
 Delai Lama, to be suspended as holy around their 
 necks, or otherwise used in their worship. These 
 people also worshipped an idol which was a repre- 
 sentation of a threefold God. 
 
 7. A medal, now in the cabinet of the emperor of 
 Russia, was found near the river Kemptschyk, a 
 
212 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 branch of the Janisea, in Siberia, of the following 
 description. A human figure is formed on one side, 
 having one body and three heads. This person sits 
 upon a cup of lotos, the common accompaniment 
 of the Godhead in various eastern countries, and on 
 a sofa in the manner of eastern kings ; on the other 
 side is the following mscription : " The bright and 
 sacred image of the Deity conspicuous in three 
 figures. Gather the holy purposes of God from them^ 
 love HIM." A heathen could not more justly or 
 strongly describe a trinity. 
 
 8. The ancient Scandinavians acknowledged a 
 triad, whom they styled Odin, Frea, and Thor. In 
 the Edda, the most remarkable monument of Scan- 
 dinavian Theology, Gangler, a prince of Sweden, is 
 exhibited as being introduced into the hall, or palace 
 of the Gods. Here he saw three thrones raised one 
 above another, and on each throne a sacred person. 
 These persons were thus described to him by his 
 guide. " He who sits on the lowest throne is Har, 
 or the lofty One. The second is Jafn Har, or equal 
 to the lofty One. He who sits on the highest throne 
 is Thridi, or the third." 
 
 9. The Romans, Germans, and Gauls, acknow- 
 ledged a triad, and worshipped a triad in various 
 manners. The Romans, and Germans worshipped 
 the Mairia3 ; three goddesses inseparable and always 
 united in their worship, temples, and honours. The 
 Romans also, together with the Greeks, worshipped 
 the Cabiri, or three Mighty Ones. The Diana of 
 the Romans, is stamped on a medal as having 
 three faces, or three distinct heads, united to one 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 213 
 
 form ; on the reverse is the image of a man, hold- 
 ing his hand to his lips, under wliom is this inscrip- 
 tion, " Be silent, it is a mystery." The German god- 
 dess Trygla, was drawn in the same manner. The 
 Gauls also united their gods in triple groups, in a 
 manner generally similar, as is evident from sculp- 
 lines either now, or lately remaining. 
 
 10. The Japanese, and Chinese, anciently ac- 
 knowledged a triad. The great image of the Ja- 
 panese is one form, with three heads, generally re- 
 sembling that of Brahma, Veeshnu, and Seeva, al- 
 ready described as worshipped by the Hindoos. The 
 Chinese worshipped in ancient times one Supreme 
 God, without images or symbols of any kind. This 
 worship lasted until after the death of Confucius, 
 about 500 years before Christ. Lao Kiun, the cele- 
 brated founder of one of the philosophical, or reli- 
 gious sects in China, delivered this as the great 
 leading doctrine of his philosophy. " The eternal 
 Reason produced one ; one produced two ; two pro- 
 duced three ; and three produced all things." 
 
 1 1 . The American nations also have in several 
 Histances acknowledged a triad. The Jroquois hold, 
 that before the creation three Spirits existed ; all of 
 whom were employed in creating mankind. The 
 Peruvians adored a triad, whom they styled "the Fa- 
 ther and Lord Sun, the Son Sun, and the Brother 
 Sun." In Cuquisaco, a province of Peru, the inha- 
 bitants worshipped an image named Tangatanga ; 
 which, in their language, signifies, one in three, and 
 three in one. 
 
214 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 Thus have I finished this numerous collection of 
 testimonies to the great scriptural doctrine of the 
 trinity. In a serious mind it cannot, I think, fail to 
 produce, not conviction only, but astonishment and 
 delight, to see the wonderful manner in which God 
 has diffused and perpetuated the evidence of this 
 doctrine throughout the successive periods of time. 
 The testimonies of the Jewish and Christian churches 
 are complete and irresistible. We are not to ex- 
 pect that, amid all the ignorance of heathenism, 
 correct and unobjectionable ideas of God should be 
 found in any nation. 
 
 But when we consider that the doctrine of a triad 
 has been so evidently received without a question, 
 in all the four quarters of the globe, and by so many 
 different nations ; that it was received among almost 
 all those who were ancient ; that it was received 
 independently of the Scriptures ; that it was express- 
 ed in so many forms, and those completely decisive 
 as to the real meaning ; that the scheme in all these 
 forms was, unanswerably, the union of three divine 
 Beings, or persons in one ; and that this scheme 
 was so often, and so definitely explained, in multi- 
 plied and very various modes of expression, — modes 
 of expression, too, which are incapable of being mis- 
 construed ; we cannot, I think, fail to determine, 
 that the doctrine of the trinity was originally reveal- 
 ed to the human race, and has almost every where 
 been conveyed down, both in their worship and 
 their sacred traditions.* 
 
 • Dwight's Theolog}-. 
 
( 215 ) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 An objection, and, as I conceive, the fundamental 
 one, on which Unitarians place their chief reliance, 
 is, that the doctrine of the trinity^ or of three persons 
 in one God, is self -contradictory. 
 
 In the preliminary observations at the commence- 
 ment of this volume, 1 have already noticed this ob- 
 jection, and shown its irrelevancy. But it may not 
 be amiss to give it a more particular answer. 
 
 Those who make this objection to the public, ex- 
 press themselves in such language as the following : 
 " The Father, according to the Trinitarian doctrine, 
 is God ; the Son is God ; and the Holy Ghost is 
 God. Three cannot be one, three units cannot be 
 one unit." Were this objection made professedly, 
 as it is actually, against the inconsistency of trithe- 
 ism with the unity of God, it would be valid and un- 
 answerable. Equally valid would it be against the 
 Trinitarians^ if they admitted the existence of three 
 Gods ; or if their doctrine involved this as a conse- 
 quence. But the former of these is not true ; and 
 
216 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 the latter has not been, and, it is presumed, cannot 
 be shown. Until it shall be shown, every Trinitarian 
 must necessarily feel that this objection is altoge- 
 ther inapplicable to his own case ; and, although in- 
 tended against his faith, is really aimed against an- 
 other, and very distant object. Until this be shown, 
 this objection will, I apprehend, be completely 
 avoided in the following manner. 
 
 1. The admission of three infinitely perfect beings 
 does not at all imply the existence of more Gods than 
 one. 
 
 This proposition may, perhaps, startle such per- 
 sons on both sides of the question, as have not turn- 
 ed their attention to the subject, but can, I appre- 
 hend, be nevertheless shown to be true. It is clearly 
 certain, that the nature, the attributes, the views, 
 the volitions, and the agency of three beings infinite- 
 ly perfect, must be exactly the same. They would 
 alike be self-existent, eternal, omniscient, omnipo- 
 tent, and possessed of the same boundless moral ex- 
 cellence. Of course, they would think exactly the 
 same things, and do the same things. There would, 
 therefore, be a perfect oneness of character and 
 conduct in the three ; and to the universe of crea- 
 tures they would sustain but one and the same rela- 
 tion, and be absolutely but one Creatdr, Preserver, 
 Benefactor, Ruler, and Final Cause. In other 
 words, they would be absolutely one God. This ra- 
 dical objection therefore is, even in this sense, of no 
 validity. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 217 
 
 2. The doctrine of the trinity does not involve the ex- 
 iste?ice of three infinite beings ', and therefore this ob- 
 jection does not ciffecl it. 
 
 The scriptural account of Jehovah, as received 
 by every Trinitarian, is, that He is one perfect Exist- 
 ence^ underived and unlimited; and that this one per- 
 fect Existence is in the Scriptures declared to he the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These, in the 
 usual language of trinitarians, are styled persons, 
 because in the Scriptures, the three personal pro- 
 nouns /, thou, and he, are on every proper occasion 
 applied to them. As this is done by the Father and 
 the Son, speaking to each other, and of the Holy 
 Ghost; and by the Holy Ghost, speaking of the Fa- 
 ther and of the Son ; we are perfectly assured, that 
 this language is in the strictest sense proper. Still, 
 no Trinitarian supposes that the word ^erso^z, conveys 
 an adequate idea of the thing here intended : much 
 less that, when it is applied to God, it denotes the 
 same thing as when applied to created beings. As 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinguished ; 
 some term, generally expressing this distinction, 
 seems necessary to those who would mark it, when 
 speaking of the three together. This term, there- 
 fore, warranted in the manner above mentioned, has 
 been chosen by Trinitarians as answering this pur- 
 pose, so far as it can be answered by human lan- 
 guage. 
 
 If 1 am asked, as 1 probably shall be, what is the 
 exact meaning of the word person in this case, I an- 
 swer, that 1 do not know. Here the Unitarian usu- 
 19 
 
218 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY- 
 
 ally triumphs over his antagonist. But the triumph 
 is without foundation or reason. If 1 ask in return, 
 " what is the human soul?" or, " the human body?" 
 he is obliged to answer, that he does not know. If 
 he says, that the soul is organized matter endowed 
 with the powers of thinking and acting, 1 ask again, 
 What is that organization? and what is that matter? 
 To these questions he is utterly unable to furnish 
 any answer. 
 
 Should he ask again, to what purpose is the ad- 
 mission of the term, if the signification is un- 
 known? 1 answer : To what purpose is the ad- 
 mission of the word matter, if its signification is un- 
 known? I further answer, that the term in dispute 
 series to convey briefly and conveniently, the things 
 intended by the doctrine ; viz. that the Father is 
 God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God ; 
 that these are three in one sense, and one in an- 
 other. The sense in which they are three, and yet 
 one, we do not, and cannot, understand. Still 
 we understand the fact ; and on this fact depend the 
 truth and meaning of the whole scriptural system. 
 If Christ be God, he is also a Saviour ; if not, there 
 is no intelligible sense, in which he can sustain this 
 title, or the character which it denotes. 
 
 In addition to this he is asserted in the Scrip- 
 tures to be God, in every form of expression and im- 
 plication, from the beginning to the end, as plain- 
 ly as language can admit, and so fully and various- 
 ly, that, if we deny these assertions their proper 
 force, by denying that he is God, we must, by the 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 219 
 
 same mode of construction, deny any thing and 
 every thing which the Scriptures contain. If the de- 
 clarations, In the beginning loas the fVord., and the 
 Word ivas with God, and the Word was God; and 
 Christ, ivho is over all things, God blessed for ever ; 
 do not prove Christ to be God : the declaration. 
 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 
 earth, does not prove that there was a creation ; or 
 that the Creator is God. The declaration. All things 
 were made by him, and loithont him icas not any thing 
 made ivhich was made, is as full proof that Christ is 
 the Creator, as that just quoted from Genesis, that 
 the Creator is God. An admission or denial of the 
 one ought, therefore, if we would treat the several 
 parts of the Bible alike, and preserve any consisten- 
 cy of construction, to be accompanied by a similar 
 admission or denial of the other. Here, then, is a 
 reason for acknowledging Christ to be God, of the 
 highest kind, viz. that God has declared this truth in 
 the most explicit manner. 
 
 The mysteriousness of the truth thus declared, fur- 
 nishes not even a shadow of reason for either denial 
 or doubt. That God can be one in one sense, and 
 three in another, is unquestionable. Whatever that 
 sense is, if the declaration be true, and one which 
 God has thought it proper to make in the Scriptures ; 
 and one, therefore, to which he has required our be- 
 lief, it is, of course, a declaration incalculably im- 
 portant to mankind, and ivorthy of all acceptation. 
 
 The futility and emptiness of this fundamental ob- 
 jection of Unitarians, as applied to the doctrine 
 
220 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 of the trinity, is susceptible of an absolute and easy 
 demonstration ; notwithstanding the objection claims 
 for itself the character of intuitive certainty. It is 
 intuitively certain, or, in other language, self-evident, 
 that no proposition can be seen to be either true or 
 false, unless the mind possess the ideas, out of which 
 it is formed, so far as to discern whether they agree 
 or disagree. The proposition asserted by Trinita- 
 rians^ and denied by Unitarians^ is, that God is tri- 
 personal. The ideas intended by the words God, here 
 denoting infinite existence, and tri-personal, are not, 
 and cannot be possessed by any man. Neither 
 Tiinitarians nor Unitarians, therefore, can by any 
 possible effort of the understanding, discern whether 
 this proposition be true or false ; or, whether the 
 ideas denoted by the words God and tri-personal, 
 agree or disagree. Until this can be done, it is per- 
 fectly nugatory, either to assert or deny this proposi- 
 tion as an object of intellectual discernment, or phi- 
 losophical inquiry. Where the mind has not ideas, 
 it cannot compare them ; it cannot discern their 
 agreement or disagreement ; and, of course, it can 
 form out of them no proposition, whose truth or false- 
 hood it can at all perceive. Thus this boasted objec- 
 tion is so far from being conclusive, or even formi- 
 dable, that it is wholly without force or application. 
 After all that has been said, it may still be asked, 
 " Why, if this proposition be thus unintelligible, do 
 Trinitarians adopt it as an essential part of their 
 creed ?'' 1 answer, " Because God has declared it." 
 Should it be asked, " Of what use is a proposition. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRIMTr. 221 
 
 thus unintelligible ?" 1 answer, " Of inestimable 
 use ;" and this answer I explain in the following 
 manner. The unintelligibleness of this doctrine lies 
 in the nature of the thing which it declares, and not 
 in the fact declared. The nature of the thing de- 
 clared is absolutely unintelligible; but the fact is, 
 in a certain degree, understood without difficulty. 
 What God is, as one, or as three in one, is perfectly 
 undiscernible by us. Of the existence, thus described, 
 we have no conception. But the assertions, that he 
 is one, and that he is three in one, are easily compre- 
 hended. The propositions, that the Father is God, 
 that the Son is God, that the Holy Ghost is God; and 
 that these three are one God; are equally intelligible 
 with the proposition, that there is one God. On these 
 propositions, understood as facts, and received on 
 the credit of the divine Witness, and not as discern- 
 ed by mental speculation, is dependant the whole 
 system of Christianity. — The importance of the doc- 
 trine is therefore supreme. 
 
 The utmost amount of all that can be said against 
 the doctrine of the trinity is, that it is mysterious, or 
 inexpUcahle. A mystery, and a mystery as to its 
 nature wholly inexplicable, it is cheerfully acknow- 
 ledged to be by every Trinitarian : but no Trinita- 
 rian will, on that account, admit, that it ought to be 
 less an object of his belief. Were the faith, or even 
 the knowledge of man, usually conversant about 
 objects which are not mysterious, — mysteriousness 
 might, with a better face, be objected against the 
 doctrine of the trinity. But mystery envelopes al- 
 19* 
 
222 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 most all the objects of both. We believe, nay, we 
 know, the existence of one God ; and are able to 
 prove him self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient, 
 almighty, unchangeable, and eternal. — But no more 
 absolute mysteries exist, than in the being, nature, 
 and attributes of God. The soul of man, the body 
 of man, a vegetable, an atom, are all subjects filled 
 with mysteries ; and about them all a child may ask 
 questions, which no philosopher can answer. That 
 God, therefore, should in his existence involve many 
 mysteries, inexplicable by us, is so far from violat- 
 ing, or stumbling, a rational faith, that it ought to 
 be presumed. The contrary doctrine would be 
 still more mysterious, and far more shock a rational 
 mind. 
 
 " As to the doctrine of the trinity," says a writer* 
 of distinguished abilities and eloquence, " it is even 
 more amazing than that of the incarnation ;^-yet 
 prodigious and amazing as it is, such is the incom- 
 prehensible nature of God, that 1 believe it will be 
 extremely difficult to prove from thence, that it can- 
 not possibly be true. The point seems to be above 
 the reach of reason, and too wide for the grasp of 
 human understanding. However, 1 have often ob- 
 served, in thinking of the eternity and immensity of 
 God ; of his remaining from eternity to the produc- 
 tion of the first creature, without a world to govern, 
 or a single being to manifest his goodness to ; of the 
 motives that determined him to call his creatures 
 into being ; why they operated when they did, and 
 
 • Skelton. Deism Revealed, Dial. 6. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 223 
 
 not before ; of his raising up intelligent beings, whose 
 wickedness and misery he foresaw ; of the state in 
 which his relative attributes, justice, bounty, and 
 mercy, remained through an immense space of du- 
 ration, before he had produced any creatures to ex- 
 ercise them towards ; in thinking, 1 say, of these 
 unfathomable matters, and of his raising so many 
 myriads of spirits, and such prodigious masses of 
 matter, out of nothing ; I am lost, and astonished, as 
 much as in the contemplation of the trinity. There 
 is but a small distance in the scale of being between 
 a mite and me ; although that which is food to me is 
 a world to him, we mess, notwithstanding, on the 
 same cheese, breathe the same air, and are gene- 
 rated much in the same manner ; yet how incompre- 
 hensible must my nature and actions appear to him ! 
 He can take but a small part of me with his eye at 
 once ; and it would be the work of his life to make 
 the tour of my arm ; 1 can eat up his world, immense 
 as it seems to him, at a few meals ; he, poor reptile! 
 cannot tell, but there may be a thousand distinct 
 beings, or persons, such as mites can conceive, in so 
 great a being. By this comparison, I find myself 
 vastly capacious and comprehensive ; and begin to 
 swell still bigger with pride and high thoughts ; but 
 the moment 1 lift up my mind to God, between 
 whom and me there is an infinite distance ; then 1 
 myself become a mite, or something infinitely less ; 
 I shrink almost into nothing. 1 can follow him but 
 one or two steps in his lowest and plainest works, 
 till all becomes mystery, and matter of amazement. 
 
224 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 to nie. How, then, shall 1 comprehend himself? 
 How siiall I undei-stand his nature, or account for 
 his actions ? In these^ he plans for a boundless 
 scheme of things ; whereas I can see but an inch be- 
 fore me. In that he contains what is infinitely more 
 inconceivable than all the wonders of his creation put 
 together ; and 1 am plunged in astonishment and 
 blindness, when 1 attempt to stretch my wretched 
 iiich of line along the immensity of his nature. Were 
 my body so large, that I could sweep all the fixed 
 stars, visible from this world in a clear night, and 
 grasp them in the hollow of my hand ; and were my 
 soul capacious in proportion to so vast a body ; I 
 should, notwithstanding, be infinitely too narrow- 
 minded to conceive his wisdom when he forms a fly : 
 and how then should 1 think of conceiving of him- 
 self? No ; this is the highest of all impossibilities. 
 His very lowest work checks and represses my vain 
 contemplations ; and holds them down at an infinite 
 distance from him. When we think of God in this 
 light, we can easily conceive it possible, that there 
 may be a trinity of persons in his nature."* 
 
 As the above objection appears to be the funda- 
 mental one which the opposers of the doctrine of the 
 trinity urge against it, it may not be amiss to give it 
 a more particular consideration. The objection as 
 stated by Faustus Socinus runs thus : 
 
 "JS^o one is so stupid as not to see that these 
 things are contradictory, that one God, the creator 
 
 • See Dwight's Theology, Ser. 39. 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 225 
 
 of heaven and earth, should be one only in number 
 and yet be three, each of which is one God. For 
 as to what they affirm that one God is one in num- 
 ber, in respect to his essence, but threefold in regard 
 to persons ; here again they affirm things which are 
 self-contradictory, since two or three persons can- 
 not exist, where there is numerically only one indi- 
 vidual essence; for to constitute more than one per- 
 son, more than one individual essence is required. 
 For what is person, but a certain individual, intel- 
 ligent essence ? Or in what way, 1 pray, does one 
 person differ from another, unless by the diversity of 
 his individual or numerical essence ? This implies 
 that the divine essence which is numerically one, and 
 divine person, are altogether identical." (Off. torn. L 
 P. 697.) 
 
 Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weight 
 of the objection lies in an erroneous use of the 
 words person and essence. Socinus attaches to 
 them a sense which Trinitarians do not admit. 
 How then can Trinitarians be charged with incon- 
 sistencies, in propositions which they do not make ? 
 
 Of the same tenor with the objection of Socinus, 
 is the objection mentioned by the famous Toellner, 
 (Theolog. Untersuchungen, B. I. P. 29.) which to 
 save time 1 shall merely translate, without subjoin- 
 ing the original. " The most considerable objec- 
 tion (against the doctrine of the trinity) is this," says 
 he, " that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
 each a particular substance endowed with under- 
 stamhng; and at the same time, neither of them is 
 
226 A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 
 
 said to have his separate being, his separate under- 
 standing, his separate will, his separate power of ac- 
 tion ; but all three together have only one being, one 
 understanding, one will, one power of action. As it 
 appears then, it is affirmed that there are three real 
 beings, truly separate ; each consequently, having 
 his own individual power of action, and not having 
 it; three separate persons, and three persons not se- 
 paratey 
 
 All the difficulty, which this masterly writer has, 
 in his usual way, so strikingly portrayed, lies mere- 
 ly in the representations of those Trinitarians, who 
 have expressed themselves on this subject so incau- 
 tiously, as to be understood to affirm, that there are 
 three separate beings (persons in the common sense 
 of the word) in the Godhead, with distinct powers, 
 volitions, &:,c. U there be any now, who defend 
 such a statement of this subject, 1 must leave them 
 to compose the difficulty with Toellner as they can. 
 
 The following objection comes from Taylor, and 
 was inserted in the English Theological Magazine, 
 vol. 1. No. 4. p. 111. 1770. 
 
 " There can," says Taylor, " be no real distinc- 
 tion between the Father and the Son, unless they 
 so differ from each other, that what is peculiar to 
 the Father, is wanting in the Son ; and what is pe- 
 culiar to the Son, is wanting in the Father. Now 
 that property which belongs exclusively to the 
 Father, or the Son, must be numbered among the 
 perfections of God ; for in the divine nature no im- 
 perfections can exist. It follows then, that some 
 
A PLEA FOR THE TRINITY. 227 
 
 perfection is lacking, both in the Father and in the 
 Son, so that neither is endowed with infinite perfec- 
 tion, which is essential to the divine nature. It 
 must be conceded then, that the essence of the 
 Father and the Son is not one and the same." 
 
 Ingenious and specious as this is, still 1 am una- 
 ble to see that it settles the point in debate. The 
 assence and attributes of God, so far as they are 
 known to us, are numerically one. If by '-'■yerfec- 
 tion^'' Taylor means all which belong to the God- 
 head ; then I answer merely by saying, it is essen- 
 tial to the perfection of the Godhead, that the dis- 
 tinction between the Father and Son should exist ; 
 for that otherwise there would be imperfection. 
 My right to make such a statement, is just the same 
 as his to make the assertion, that the distinction be- 
 tween the Father and Son, involved an imperfec- 
 tion in each. The very distinction between Father 
 and Son, is essential to complete divinity ; and did 
 not these exist, something would be wanting to com- 
 plete the perfection of the Godhead. I acknow- 
 ledge this is assumption ; but so is Taylor's state- 
 ment : and an argument, which is built on an as- 
 sumption, may surely be opposed by another argu- 
 ment, which has the same foundation.* 
 
 * See Professor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. 
 
 THE END.