*w&
YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

DISCUSSION

OF THE

DOCTEINE OF THE TRINITY

BETWEEN

LUTHER LEE, WESLEYAN MINISTER,

AND

SAMUEL J. MAY, UNITARIAN, MINISTER.

REPORTED BY LUCIUS C MATLACK-

SYRACUSE, N. Y. :
PUBLISHED AT THE WESLEYAN BOOK ROOM,
No. 60 South Sauna Street,
1854

DISCUSSION

BY LUTHER LEE AND SAMUEL J. MAY

COMMENCED FEBRUARY 28, 1854.

FIRST EVENING
By consent of the parties, C. T. Longstreet,
Esq., of Syracuse, was called on to preside. An
immense audience filled the City Hall— hund
reds being unable to get in. The meeting was
opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. May.
mr. lee's first speech.
Mr. Chairman, and Respected Auditors : —
It is with a profound, and even oppressive sense
of responsibility, that I rise to open this discus
sion, between -my friend, Rev. Mr. May, and
myself. This deep and moving feeling of my
heart, does not arise simply from the fact that
my friend, in this discussion my opponent, and
I, differ in opinion. We all probably differ on
. some questions. It is the lot of mankind to dif
fer, and always has been.
Nor is it the simple fact that we have agreed
to discuss our differences before this intelligent
audience, that burdens me with so deep a sense
of responsibility. There is nothing to be feared
from discussion. My (friend on the other side'
would not harm me if he could ; and you, intel
ligent and benevolent auditors, would not harm
me, even should I be found in error, and defea
ted at the close of the discussion. I should still
have the pity of all good people, and sustain no
loss but the loss of my errors, which loss would
be a gain to heaven and earth.
To come to the point,; it is the nature of the
subject we have agreed to discuss, that causes
my. heart to beat slow and solemn, under an op
pressive weight of responsibility.
The great question involves the being of God
that made us both ; whom we both profess to
worship and adore. It concerns tbe mode of
his existence, and affects the worship we offer to
him. It concerns the character of our Lord

Jesus Christ, in whom we trust for redemption.
It raises the question Is he God? or man? or
both? or neither? What is he in whom we
trust ; who is the only " name given under hea
ven among men whereby we must be saved."
It raises the question, What is the Holy Ghost ?
upon whose power we rely to renew our hearts,
to sanctify our spirits, and to comfort and guide
us through our earthly pilgrimage, to that rest
that remaineth to the people of God. The ques
tion is raised, Is this Holy Ghost, God ? or a
created being"? or something else '! What is the
HolyGhoot? It will be seen at a glance, that the affirma
tives and negatives, of the points involved in
the issue, embrace conclusions sufficiently wide
from each other, to form the basis of distinct
and widely different systems pf religion. The
fact cannot be disguised — my friend on the other
side, or myself, must be fundamentally wrong.
If he preaches the true gospel, I do not ; and if
I preach the true gospel he does not. If his re
ligion is true Christianity, mine must be a sys
tem of idolatry. And if my religion is true
Christianity, his cannot be, nor can those who
embrace it be saved, unless they are saved by
the power of the truths they reject, to which
heaven being willing, I will not object.
It is then a solemn work to discuss these mo
mentous questions. After I have spent the prime
of life, and most of the strength of ray manhood,
until my head is grey with the frost of more
than half a century, in preaching what I have
honestly believed to be the gospel of the grace
God ; and have baptized hundreds into the same
faith ; I come here and lay it all down between
me and my friend on the other side, to be taken
up and discussed between us as a question yet
unsettled.

'DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

The question agreed upon to be discussed
reads thus :
" There is but one living and true God, ever
lasting, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness,
the maker and preserver of all things, visible
and invisible. And in unity of the Godhead
there are three persons of one substance, power
and eternity ; the Father, the Son, [the Word]
and the Holy Ghost."
The first part of this article I understand is
admitted by both parties to the discussion. The
second part, commencing with the affirmation
that " there are three persons in unity of the
Godhead," is the real question in debate. Of
this I have the affirmative, and my friend the
negative. As I have the case to make out I
shall attempt to prove
1. The essential, underived divinity of our
Lord Jesus Christ, — the Son or Word.
2. The divinity of the Holy Ghosts and his
personality. 3. The unity of the two with the Father, in
the Godhead. ,
In proof of the Deity, or underived Divinity
Of Christ, I offer the following arguments.
I. All the names and titles which God has ap
propriated to himself, are accredited to Christ.
I will commence with the name, God.
This is the first name by which God is known
in the Scriptures. " In the beginning God cre
ated the heavens and the earth." Gen. i. 1.
With this title the Deity is presented to the
notice of mankind, at the opening of the book
of religious truth. And this expressive and
emphatic title is most explicity applied to Jesus
Christ. To prove this I referyou first to a plain
declaration of the old Testament Scriptures
which is afterwards applied to him by the Apos
tle Paul.
'¦' Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever."
Psa. xlv. 6. This is applied to Christ, Heb. i. 8.
" Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne O God is
for ever and ever."
To avoid the force of this text which is so
clearly in point, it is rendered by a different
¦ translation so as to read^God is thy throne for
ever and ever." But to this verbal criticism,
there are three -serious and fatal objections,
which compel us to abide by the word of God
as it is here given in our translation, and alrea
dy quoted,
1. There is no parallel case to give it coun
tenance. 2. It makes no sense ; God is not and cannot
be a, throne.

3. To make God the throne of a creature
would be absurd and false, if not blasphemous.
Again. We have a most remarkable declara
tion in the old Testament giving the title "Migh
ty God" to Jesus Christ.
" Ffcriinto us a child is born, unto us a Son
is given ; and the government shall be upon
his shoulder ; add hiB name shall be called Won
derful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever
lasting Father, the Prince of Peaee," Isa. ix. 6
This clearly refers to Christ because
1. The context is applied to Christ.
The first and second verses of the ninth chap
ter of Isaiah read thus :
" Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such
as was in, her vexation, when at the first he
lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and tbe
land of Naphtali. and afterward did more griev
ously afflict her the way of the sea, beyond Jor
dan, in Galilee of the nations.
" The people that walked in darkness have
seen a great tight: they that dwell in the land of
the shadow of death, lrpon them hath the light
shined." Compare this with Matthew iv. 12-16, "Now
when Jesus had heard that John was cast into
prison, he departed into Galilee. And leaving
Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum,
which is upon the sea coast in the borders of
Zabulon and Nephtalim."
" That it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zab
ulon, and the land of Nephtalim, by the way
of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of tbe Gen
tiles; The people which sat in* darkness^aw
great light : and to them which sat in the region
and shadow of death light is sprung up."
2. The child thus born is the successor of
David and to reign forever.
" Of the increase of his government and peace
there shall be no end, upon the throne of David,
and upon his kingdon, to order it, andto estab
lish it with judgment and with justice, from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord
of hosts will perform this." Isaiah ix. 7.
It is impossible to apply this passage, to any
other person than to Jesus Christ. For no oth
er person was ever spoken of as the everlast
ing successor of David, except Jesus Christ.
But your attention is invited to a passage
which calls JesUB ChriBt " Oar God."
It is said in Isaiah xl. 3.
"The voice* of him that crieth in the wilder
ness, Prepare ve the way of the Lord, make
straight is the desert a highway for our Godl"

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,

5

This is applied to Christ in Matt. iii. 3 : " ForThis is followed by the Apostle,s saying, " So

this is he that was spoken of by the prophet
Esaias, saying, the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lordi
make his paths straight." Observe; theproph"
et calls Christ " Our God." There can be bu
one exposition of this. The supreme God must
be meant. " This God is our God for ever and
ever." Psa. xlviii. 14
In the following passage, the speaker declares
himself to be God. And the speaker in this
case was Christ as will be made to appear.
" Look uato me,and be ye saved, all the ends
of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none
else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone
out of my. mouth in righteousness, and shall not
return, That uuto me every knee shall bow, and
every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one
say, In the Lord have I righteousness and
strength : even to him shall men come ; and all
that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justi
fied, and shall glory." Isa. xlv. 22-25. •
This text is, in fact, the language of Christ,
and is, in part, spoken of Christ. The argu
ments ia favor of this are :
1. The language upon its face concerns Christ.
The same being who says " I am God and
there is noue else," is thus affirmed of in the
declaration, '' In the Lord shall all the seed of
Israel be justified, and shall glory."
The text relates to gospel times and gospel
justification. Hear what Paul says.
" Be it known unto you therefore, men and
bretfiren, that through this man is preached un
to you the forgiveness of siDS : And by him, all
that believe are justified from all things, from
which ye Could not be justified by the law of
Moses." Acts. xiii. 38, 39.
2. This text is clearly applied to Christ by the
Apostle. •'But why dost thou judge thy brother? or
why dost thou set " at nought thy brother? we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall
confess to God. So then every one of us shall
give account of himself to God." Rom. xiv.
10-12. Here the Apostle solemnly admonishes us)
that we shall all stand before the judgment seat
of Christ. To prove it he quotes, the declara
tion of Isaiah, 45: 23. ' ''Every knee shall
bow to me and every tongue confess to God.*'

then every one shall give an accouht of himself
to' God." Thus clearly affirming that "the
Lord" spoken of by Isaiah is no other than
" Christ," and that Christ is " God."
. I now ask you attention to the following

" In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John i. 1.
The only real ground of dispute in regard to
this text is this ; is Jesus Christ the person here
called the Word ? This point shall be made
plain. 1. It was to this same Word that John gave
testimony. " In him was life ; and the life was the light
of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and
the darkness comprehended it not. There was
a man sent from God whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness
of the Light, that all men through him might
believe. He was not that Light, but was sent
to bear witness of that Light."
2. This same Word was made flesh ; that is
became incarnate. " And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare
witness of him, and cried, saying, This Was he
of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is
preferred before me : for he was before me."
3 Christ is named as the Word which was
God. " And of his fulness have all we received,
and grace for grace. For the law was given by
Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." There you have it. The mystery, if any there
was is all explained now. The Word is Jesus
Christ ; and as the Word is God, it follows that
that Jesus Christ is God.
IjBnd that my time is out, and I rest the ar
gument here so far as it relates to the title
•'God" as used in reference to Christ.
MR. may's first speech.
I have never stood up in this community, nor
'any where else, and denied the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit. I have not come here to
night, to deny them. I believe in them almost
as much as I believe in my own existence. I
have always preached of fhem to the churches
that have listened to my instructions. vI have
christened my own children, and many pf the
'children of my best earthly friends, in the name

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE"' OF THE TRINITY,

of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
And mOBt frequently do I dismiss the congre
gation of worshippers to which I minister, with
that benediction, in which are invoked the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ— the love of
God and the communion of the. Holy Spirit.
In one sense, and that the most important
sense, I believe in the unity, i. e. the perfect
spiritual harmony of the three. I believe that
the Father is the one living and true God, self-
existent, eternal, of infinite power, wisdom and
goodness. I believethat his spirit of power, wis
dom and goodness were manifested in the Son,
to whom his spirit was given not by measure
—and I believe that it is the same spirit which
is manifested in the Son, that worketh in us all
to will and do, of God's good pleasure, and that
it would bring us into harmony, unity, at-one-
ment with the Father and the Son, in accord
ance with the prayer of Christ— John xvii, 20,
23. *
You see then I declare, and those who have
attended my ministry of the word here and
elsewhere can testify that I have always, declar
ed my belief that God was manifest in the flesh,
i. e. that the character, the pure, holy, loving,
self-sacrificing spirit of the man Jesus of Naz
areth was a manifestation of God to men ; and
that God's Holy Spirit which was so fully man
ifested in Christ, is ever present, the spirit of
truth, purity, mercy — pleading with the sinful
heart, consoling the sorrowful, nerving and an
imating the soul to dare bravely, and endure
patiently in the cause of truth and righteous
ness—the cause of God and humanity.
My religious belief will probably be more
fully disclosed to you in the sequel of this dis
cussion. It was necessary that I should say
thus much, in order that our audience may un
derstand aright the doctrine that is in question
between myself and my friend.
I am not here to deny the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit as they are set before us
in the Bible. I believe in them as Moses and
the Prophets — Christ and his Apostles present
them to my faith.
But I reject and I have come before you to
maintain, on the authority of the Bible, my re
jection of a doctrine called the Trinity, and set
up in most Christian Churches as the great es
sential truth of the Gospel — a doctrine that I
am confident is no where, in tbe old Testament
or the New stated as it is stated in the creeds
of the so called orthodox churches ; and which
f'expect to prove is not supported by any de-!

clarations in those, sacred scriptures, properly
understood. I am here to deny and, if I am able, to main
tain my denial of a doctrine which I am fully
persnaded'was not introduced into the Christian
Church until after the 2d century and not es
tablished until the'Bth century— more than four

hundred years after the death of Christ ; and
then introduced by the Platonizing Fathers of
the Church, who by their learning, eloquence
and zeal, after a long continued struggle be
guiled or overbore the unlearned Christians,
who had been wont to rely wholly upon the
teachings of Christ, his apostles, and their suc
cessors. I have come here to deny a doctrine which
lam confident the primitive Church, at least
for the first three centuries did not believe
or certainly did not accept as the stand
ard of its orthodoxy, until after the 4th century
—a doctrine which the early and most strenu
ous defenders of it, allowed was not taught by
Christ, a doctrine which the Roman Catholic
Church, its chief supporter, rests more upon the
authority of traditionary.lore, than of the words
of the Bible; and which many theologians, chief
ly of the English Episcopal Church, have ac
knowledged the insufficiency of the scripture
evidence to prove.
It took at least four hundred years to estab
lish this great corruption in the Christian
Church. Soon after commenced the dark ages
of a thousand years, during which the lamp of
learning only flickered here and there in a cloi
ster ; the Scriptures were almost unknown to
the people, and the dismal system of theology
which had been devised in the great names of
Athanasius and Angustine were substituted for
the Gospel, and enforced by the authority of
Church and State. Thus fixed and indurated in
the mind of Christendom, the Trinity and its
kindred doctrines have not easily yielded to the
truth. The work of reform commenced 325
years ago under Luther—and it may take much
longer to purify than it did to corrupt the faith
of the Church, though great progress has been
made within the last fifty years.
I have come not to deny but to maintain what
the Bible teaches, the unity of God; to deny
therefore and give my reasons from scripture
for denying the truth of a doctrine, which
seems (notwithstanding the disclaimer of its
adherents) to require our belief in three Gods
rather than one ; which in the very statement
of it implies that the second God of the Trinity

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

is greater than the first ; and,, when taken in |
connection with the system of doctrines that
is built upon it, more than implies that the Son
is more merciful than the Heavenly Father.
The doctrine which I deny, and have come
here to oppose — the doctrine which I suppose
to be essentially announced in the proposition
which is the basis of this discussion — the doc
trine of the Trinity is more tully and objection
ably Btated in the Creed of the Great Presby
terian Church — thus :
Confession of Faith Chapter ii. Sect. Sd.
In unity of the Godhead there be three per
sons of one substance, power and eternity :
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost, The Father is of none, Neither begotten
nor proceeding ; the Son is eternally begotten
of the Father, the Holy Ghfdst eternally proceed
ing from the Father an'j the Son.
Chap, viii, section 2d, The Son of God, the
second person in the Trinity, being very and
eternal God, o,' one substance and equal with
the Father ( flja) w^en the fulness of time was
come, ^ake upon him man's nature ; and all the
essential properties and common infirmities
+Iaereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the
power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the
Virgin Mary, of her substance, so that two
whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the God
head and the manhood, were inseparably joined
together in one person, without conversion,
composition, or confusion ; which person is very
God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Me
diator between God and man.
The same doctrine is stated somewhat differ
ently in the articles of the great Episcopal
Church of England and these United States.
In the creed of the church of which my broth
er Lee is a distinguished minister, the same doc
trine, though somewhat modified, is thus de
clared:— J. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, ever
lasting, of infinite power, wisdom, and good
ness ; the maker and preserver of all things, vis
ible and invisible. And in unity of this God
head there are three persons of one substance,
power and eternity ; — the Father, the Son, [the
Word] and the Holy Ghost.
27. Of the Son of God.
The only begotten Son of God was conceived
by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
dead, and buried, to be a sacrifice, not only for
original guilt, but also for the actual sins of
men, and to reconcile us to God.

IV. Of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father
and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and
glory, with the Father and the Son, very and
eternal God.

This is the doctrine, so stated, that I deem a
monstrous and mischievous error. In speaking
of it, I have always referred to the formula of
the Presbyterian or Episcopal Church -f and
should have preferred in this discussion, to have
had them for the propositions which I would un
dertake to refute. But as the 1st article of my
brother Lee's own creed seems to contain the
essence of the whole error, I have consented
that that should be the thesis of our debate. I
propose to show that this doctrine is not taught
in the Bible.
In my arguments and illustrations I shall
make use of and rely, mainly, upon our com
mon English translation, availing myself no far
ther than may be absolutely necessary of the
learning which has been brought to undermine
this doctrine of the Trinity, by the theologians
who are skilled in the Greek originals of the
New Testament, and the Hebrew originals of the
Old. My friend, Mr. Lee, and myself, are perfectly
agreed in believing that, " there is but one liv
ing and true God, everlasting, of infinite pow
er, wisdom and goodness ; the maker and pre
server of all things visible and invisible. But
here we part ; he affirms, and I deny, that the
Bible teaches us that " in this unity of the God
head there are three persons, of one substance,
power and eternity."
This, all must allow, is a very marvelous
doctrine. It sems self-contradictory, and there
fore self-evidently false. ' Those who profess to
believe it do not attempt- to explain it. Neith
er do they agree in their manner of stating it.
I have been told by a distinguished orthodox min
ister of this very city, that the creeds of the
Presbyterian and the Episcopal Churches are
stated in language which has become obsolete,
" No Trinitarian," he said, " Can be found who,
if he were called upon to state his views, would
state them in the exact language of either of
those creeds." And yet, I am told all persons
who are admitted to the communion of those
churches, certainly those who are admitted to
be ministers, are required to declare their belief
of 'this doctrine of the Trinity, as it is propound
ed in those creeds.
All believers of it concur in pronouncing this
doctrine a profound, a sublime mystery. tood«»n

8

tftSCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

to bs fathomed,7 too high to be attained to by
the human mind. * A doctrine which the human
reason cQttJd.'npt have invented or discovered, of
itself, and cannot comprehend even after it isre-
vealedjj TIjey declare it tp be a doctrine whjch.
whether .w^ understand it or not, we are bound
to receive upon the authority of divine revela-
tiop-rnpon the teachings of the Bible.
-j . Njflw, then, if this be so, I must demand thai
this doctrine, so important to be believed, yet •
10 difficult of comprehension, shall be given to
me precisely a? I am to believe it, in the very
words of Christ or his Apostles, or of some one!
or more of the reyelators of the New or, o£ the!
Old Testament. This, surely, Is,a mpst reason
able demand, for if unassisted, uninspired minds i
cannot comprehend this doctrine of the Trinity.
they surely may not be trusted tp devise th,cJ
form of words, in which It should be stated and
received. But wiU it be pretended, that; this
doctrine, as we are required by the orthodox
churches to believe if;, is proffered to us in the
language of Scripture. Surely pot; My broth)-
er Lee will not claim that this doctrine— the 1st
article of the creed of his own church — is offer
ed to my acceptance in the words of the Bible :
(I am told it was drawn up by himself)--much
less will he claim, that this doctrine of the Pres
byterian or the Episcopal churches is stated a)s
it is found in any part of Scripture. No., ; e yep
the words, Trinity, Trinne God, are not any
where to be found there ; nor are the^e «uc|h
phrases withjn the covers of this book, as God
the Son, or, God the Holy Ghost. All such
words and phrases are the devices of uninspired
mpn— yes, of men who lived centuries ' after
Christ. The dpotrineof the Trinity, so far as the Pro
testant Christians attempt tp maintain it, is left
tp rest upon inferences drawn frpm. certain ^ex
pressions, wprids,ror phrases found in the Bible,
respecting God, Christ,and the Holy Spirit. It
is claimed by Trinitai ians, that divine attrib
utes are ascribed to each of these per^pns^nay.
more,.tJbat the names pf the Deity are given to
each, and therefore, that they should be consid
ered one and the same being.
Now the force of their argument will be not a
little modified and weakened, when we consider
the style of onr Sacred Scriptures? the manner
; in which words referring to the Deity , are used
in them. The style of thejBible, you all knpw,
, is .eminently .figurative ;' but; how figurative,
how bold it is in the use of the names and attri

butes of the Deity, ypu may : not, have duly con?
}idered'. Not only angels, but good men, great
men, very distinguished men, were called-in
the ancient Scriptures,, sons of- God. Ad«tt\
was said to be the ; son , of God. , Indeed, tSe
Jewish people were called " the sons of the liv
ing God, (Hosea, i. 10.) We read that man was
made in the Image of God.
In the New Testament we read (John, i. 12,)
" that as many as received1 Him, tp them gave
'ie power to become the sons of Qp9 " Indeed,
we are tpld (Rom. viii. 12, that, " as many as
ire led by the spirit of God, they are flip sons of
3pd." But niore thjin this, those -to whom the. word
of, God came-rthe prophets, princes, judges—
were called Gods. Moses was called a God to
Pharaoh. (Expd. vii. 1.) And; others of /-he
prophets were called God, wjth additions tOvthe
name, which would tp us sewn applicable, only
to the High and Holy One. The High Priest,
before Samuel, was called "Eli," which meant
?'MyGod." Eliab, meant " God my Father j"
Ejihu, " He is my Gpd himself ;" Elijah, " God
the Lord ;" Ellsha, "God that saves. So. also,
tthiel (Neh. xi. 7,) meant " God with me," and
Lemuel mean,!" God with them," just as much
sis Emanuel meant "God with us ;" nay,4t is a
mpst pertinent fact; one that presses hard upon
those, who place much reliance upon such titles
¦\a a proof of the Deity of any. man : it is, I say,
a most pertinent .fact, that those remarkable ti
tles which, in ist>, yi,i. 14, ix. 6, are generally al
lowed to hay e been prophetically applied to Je
sus of Nazareth, were primarily applied to a
person who, in tjie 7th chapter, , had been fore
told as about to he bprn and to be called Im-
tnanuel ; and in this 9th chapter was declared
to have beeii born, and tp.whoni the names El-
gibbor, Abiad, Sar Shalom, were given ; names
meaning the Mighty God, the Everlasting Fath
er, the Prince of Peace. Now, whatever may
be true of the prophetical application of these
titles to Christ, it is equally true that, primari
ly, they were applied to'sProe one in that day,
probably Hezekjah, the . spn of Ahaz, who be
came a wise, mighty and peaceful prince ; and
this Bhows that the bestbwment of- even such
high titles, does not prove, the, man, to whom they
were given, to be the Supreme God. It was a
peculiarity of the Hebrew style.
To show how singularly figurative and bold
the Hebrews were in the use oif some of the ti
tles of the Most Jigh, I need only refer ypu to

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

-Jeremiah, xxxiii. 16, where the prophet says —
" In those days shall Judah be saved and Jeru
salem dwell safely, and this is the name where
with she shall be called, (Yehovah Tsidkenu,)
Jehovah our righteousness,'* (or, Jehovah is our
salvation,) precisely the same title that, in the
23d chap.. 6th verse, the same prophet is gene
rally understood to have applied to Christ, and
which is often quoted as an impregnable proof
text of the absolute Deity of that beloved Son
of God.
I am aware of the attempt which the very
learned Dr. Adam Clarke makes to show a dif
ference in the meaning of this same title in the
one place and in the other. But he has failed
to accomplish his object, though in his earnest
ness he has pronounced our common English
translation of xxiii. 6, " ignorant and almost
impious" epithets that we Unitarians should not
be allowed so to apply to any part of this
translation, wi#out. being accused of enmity
to the Bible.
So too in Ezekiel xlviii. 35, Jerusalem is
called, (Jehovah Shammah,) the Lord, or Jeho
vah is there, Exodus xvii. 15, Moses built an al
tar and called it " Jehovah God my banner."
These examples may suffice, though many more
could be adduced showing the exceedingly bold
figurative style of the Hebrews.
Now I demand, if in a book, where the titles
and attributes of God are so freely given to men
and things, we do find some of these titles and
attributes bestowed indirectly or directly upon
Jesus Christ, whether we may thence conclude,
that he was and really is the self-existent, ai^d
eternal Jehovah? This is the immense — the
stupendous conclusion, which my brother, and
other Trinitarians draw from so slight a premise.
I will go with him if he wishes, and our audi
ence will have patience, into the details of this
kind of proof, but I can forewarn him. he will
find it too narrow, and too shallow to sustain
the mighty system of faith that is reared upon
it and upon arguments like it.
And then, Si?, if he shall succeed in making
it appear that there is in the ^Scriptures of the
Old Testament some evidence of the Deity of
Christ — I shall insist that to sustain the dpctrine
of his Church he is bound to bring forward from
the Old Testament or the New, evidence of the
personality and Supreme deity of the Holy
Spirit ; for without that there can be no trinity ;
nor then without one [further question being
settled. For even should hesucceed in producing indu
2

bi table evidence from the Scriptures of this part
of his doctrine, he will then have the hardest
part of his task i e. to prove that there Me
three infinite persons, and yet only one — three
eternals yet only one — three almighty Gods,
and yet but one. At least, I think I shall be
justified in the conclusion of onr debate, in re
quiring him to produce me from the Old Tes
tament or the New, a statement of this stupend
ous doctrine, in the very formula in which I am
to receive it, given to mankind by Jesus Christ
the author and finisher of our faith — or by one
of his accredited apostles — or at least by some
one or more of the Prophets, showing that this
amazing doctrine was known before Christ's
day, and precluded the necessity of his teaching
it. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the doctrine of the
trinity, in the unity of God, was known to Mo
ses and the Prophets, and they meant to teach
it in those passages, which are quotedfrom their
writing, may I not atk with profonnd astonish
ment, at least may I not humbly inquire, why
this doctrine was not more distinctly stated, so
that the Jewish people might have had some
idea of its truth, and not have fallen as they
did universally into the belief of the simple, un-
compounded unity of God- Nay was there not
all the more need that the religious teachers of
the Jews should have taught them this doctrine
if it were true, seeing they had taken so much
pains to declare and enforce the doctrine, that
there is but one God. and to denounce the plur
ality, of the deities worshipped by the Hea
then ? Was it not moreover, all important that
they, especially Moses, should have taught the
true doctrine of the Trinity, so that the children
of Abraham might not confound it with the
trinity in the Godhead worshipped by the Egypt
ians, of which they must have learnt something
during their long sojourn in that house of their
bondage — or afterwards have confounded it with
fie Trinity, worshipped by some of the nations
of Asia.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it was against a
similar, if not the same error .which I oppose,
that the great founder of the Jewish Theoracy
was instructed to teach the simple unity of the
godhead. That error, amongst the men of old
time, sprang from fheir mistaking unwittingly
perhaps, the. manifestations. of the divine attrib-
ltes, for1 the being in whom they all are com
bined. The same error in the Christian Church
has arisen I believe from the shame of. the cross
the eagerness of his disciples to ma^nifyllis

10

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINK OF THK TRINITY.

person, the nature of Christ ; and this error is
maintained amongst us, as you will perceive in
the arguments of my brother Lee; by an exag
geration of the meaning of epithets justly bo-
stowed upon the dearly beloved son of God,
who was, what ail men were made to become —
perfect in his sphere and measure as God isper-
fect in his. So far did the religious wisdom and
holy spirit of Jesus, and the miraculous powers
that were manifested in him — so far did they
transcend what bad been seen in other men-^-
that those who believed in him and loved him
could scarcely find words to express their con
ceptions of his exaltation— accustomed as they
were to such lofty names and titles conferred
upon far inferior prophets and teachers. But
nothing is plainer in the narratives we have of
his life, than that he disclaimed those expres
sions of regard, that were due to the Supreme
Being alone, when offered by his friends ; and
that he repelled the accusation, brought by his
enemies, that he made himself equal with God.
St. Paul from whose writings my brother Lee
will quote some of the strongest proofs he can
find in the New-Testament of the deity of Christ:
St. Paul made some of the plainest and most
emphatic declarations of an opposite doctrine —
and there is one passage — 1 Cor. viii. 4 5 6,
which I think solves the whole problem between
us Unitarians and th'e Trinitarians. The apostle
there says, " there is none other God but one,
for though there be that all called Gods wheth
er in heaven^ or in earth, (as there be Gods
many and Lords many) unto 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." Here the Apos
tle recognizes the fact that other beings besides
the one living and true God, may have been
called by his names ; butlhen he insists that the
being whom we distinguish from all others, and
whom even the Trinitarians distinguish as the 1st
person of their Trinity, that he, the Father, is
the one God. Now if Paul had said unto us
there is but one God Jehovah, we might expect
our trinitarian brethren to insist that in Jeho
vah there are three persons. Father, Son and
Holj Ghost ; but the apostle says the Father
ouly is God. Now, brother Lee, will not I
trust, maintain that in the Father are three per
sons Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for that would
be to maintain that one of the persons of the
Trinity, contains the sther two from which he
is distinguished, moreover such an hypothesis
would deprive the apostle's word of all mean

ing. Until therefore, this remarkable declara
tion of St. Paul can be explained away, we must
claim him as a Unitarian.
mr. lee's second speech.
My plan will be, first to reply to what may have
been said, which I judge needs a reply. And then
fill up the balance of my time with my direct
argument. I shall pursue a direct line of argu
ment, resuming it at each time precisely at the
point where I shall have dropped it at the close
of, my preceding speech.
But little has been said, by my opponent, in
reply to the arguments I have advanced. The
reason of this is obvious. The speech read by
Mr. May was written before he had heard my
arguments, and of course it could not contain
a reply to them.
He opened his address by telling you that he
never denied the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I never supposed that he did. % man who is at
all acquainted with the Bible, and would deny
their existence, would be a very strange affair.
I have not accused him of denying the Father,
Son, or Holy Ghost. The question is not wheth
er there be a Father, or a Son, or a Holy Ghost.
It is this : Who is the Son, or what is he ? And,
what is the Holy Ghost? Are they both God?
And do they exist with the Father, in the unity
of the Godhead ?
But he has not told as what he believes con
cerning the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He has
used language, in the course of his remarks,
that implied that he believes the Son is not God,
a#id that the Holy Ghost is not God. But he
does not say what he docs believe respecting
them. Now, will my opponent in this discus
sion be so kind as to tell us in what sense he be
lieves Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. And
what he understands the Holy Ghost to be. 1
trust he will explain this distinctly.
He has told us that the Doctrine of the Trin
ity was introduced into the church by the phil
osophers of the the third century. And that,
too, after an earnest opposition from the early
friends of Christianity, who deemed it a corrup
tion. I think him rather premature in introdu
cing this aspect of the question at this early
stage.of the discussion. I shall hereafter urge
the history of the early church on presenting
my side of the argument. And when this fea
ture of the discussion is on hand, lie may have
an opportunity for the use of all the guns he
has got on this subject.
Mr. May informs us that a great many texts

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINK OF THE TRINITT.

I

11

have been given up by Trinitarians. But that
is nothing to the purpose. The question is not
what texts have been given up, or what retain
ed by Trinitarians. The question is this simply:
What does the Bible teach on the subject.
Strong men on our side of the question may
have given up the texts referred to, or they may
not. But what of that? With that I have no
thing to do whatever.
He says, some of tho leading men of the
Church of England have given up that Scrip
ture is insufficient to sustain the doctrine of the
Trinity, and rely, in part, upon tradition. Well,
the Church of England may have given up, or
it may hold many opinions that I have not
agreed to, and shall not defend. But that is
not the question. It is this : Is the doctrine of
the Trinity taught in the Bible ? To this point
I shall direct my remarks, and to this point at
tempt to hold mj> friend, in this discussion.
He has introduced to notice and discussed the
question of three Gods. But his play upon that
is begging the question. For he does not know
what my position is teaching the points involv
ed. He assumes, without proving it, that my
views require a belief in three Gods. But this
he does not know and cannot prove. It is bring
ing up a remote point in the discussion at too
early a period. I have not yet introduced but
one point in the argument, and that relates only
to the Deity of Jesus Christ. When I shall have
reached that part of the argument that relates
to the relation of the Father and the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, he can grapple the question on
which he now can say but little to purpose in
Uie absence of any positions defined by me.
My opponent refers to the form of faith as
found in the Presbyterian confession of faith,
as more objectionable than the statement of the
doctrine of the Trinity in the Wesleyan articles
of religion. He considers the latter as some
what modified when compared with the former.
But such is not the fact. The doctrine of the
Trinity is as distinctly and as objectionably set
forth in the one as in the other. The language
is modified, but not the doctrine ! He refers to
» distinguished orthodox minister, in this city,
who said that no Presbyterian would, if called
on to-day to express his view pf the Trinity, do
go in»the precise language of the confession of
faitb. Now, abating the ^'distinguished," I
mppose the reference is to myself. But it is not
because their views now differ from tbe state-
neat of the doctrine as found in the creed, but

that the forms of expression now used are dif
ferent. Language has changed somewhat, but
the doctrine remains the same. And I am just
as willing to maintain the doctrine as \he Pres- '
byterians state it, as to maintain my own form
of expression. I am willing to stand by that
doctrine, as they state it, here and elsewhere.
And my friend ought to know enough to distin
guish between a doctrine and the statement of
that doctrine. He must learn todistinguish be
tween such things, or we shall get into great
confusion of ideas.
Mr. May objects, that the doctrine of the
Trinity is not stated in the exact words
of the Bible. But that is nothing to do with
the discussion. There are a great many doc
trines that men believe, that are not stated in
the exact words of the Bible. All we have to
do now is to prove or disprove that the doctrine
of the Trinity is taught by the words of the Bi
ble. However the Bible may state questions,
men misunderstand them, be they ever so plain
ly given. This discussion shows that my oppo
nent in this argument, and myself, do not under
stand the Bible alike. It is for the purpose of
ascertaining who agree on the meaning of the
Bible that creeds are written. Now he and J
understand the creed alike as to what is design-
ed to' teach, though we differ about the Bible.
It is not, therefore, of any force as an objection
to the doctrine of the Trinity, that onr state
ment of it is not made in the very words of the
Bible. The only point of importance is this :
Does our statement of the doctrine tr«ly ex
press the idea of the Bible, or does it conflict
with it. I affirm that it is in accordance with
the Bible ; and the task of my opponent is to
show that it is not.
In the course of his remarks, Mr. May has not
seen fit to notice the points I made on the appli
cation of the name of God to Jesus Christ. He
has quoted and criticised texts that I have not
introduced, while texts that I have introduced
he passes by altogether.
He remarks in one part of his speech that the
language is figurative, highly so and not to be
relied on. Indeed he affirms therefore that it
does not prove Christ to be God, however plain
ly he is so called by the Scriptures. It would
not be difficult by this mode of argumentation
so prove God out of the Bible altogether.
Mr. May says that it was common for good
men to be called "Sons of God." Adam he
says was the Son of God. The Jewish people

13

DISCUSSION OF THB DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

too were the " Son's of the Living God." Now
this remark that the language of the Bible is,
" figurative" and therefore unreliable if adhered
to, will compel him to the conclusion that Jesus
is a mere man, and in no sense distinguished
frpm any other of the Son's of God. Jesus
Christ is in no wise above the rest. On this
ground he is not in an extr,a sense at all the Son
of God. Again do I call upon my opponent in
this argument to define himself clearly as to the
sense in which he regards Jesus Christ to be the
Son of God.
Tbe attempt to dispose of the prophecy of
Isaiah vii. 14 ; ix. 6, is certainly insufficient to
meet the points I made. He denies that it is.a
prophecy of Christ. He affirms that it is a
prophecy of somebody else. But of what or to
whom it relates he does not affirm nor argue. It
"probably" means Hczekiah, he says. But be
yond this feeble conjecture nothing is attempted.
He has told us that Jerusalem is palled " The
Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness," and thence
argued that Jehovah being applied to Christ
does not prove him Divine. I have not yet
qupted such a text. It is not therefore in the dis
cussion. When he has replied to, or even noticed
all my former texts it will be time enough to
add new ones to the list..
He asks why not state the doctrine explicitly
in tbe language of scripture, Now although
he fails to, see it plainly stated there, I do see
it. . And I think I shall prove it is planly stated
therein. We disagree, but I hope to succeed in
establishing my positions in opposition to- his.
His text from Paul, which speaks of ""none
other God but one," I have on my notes and
it shall be considered hereafter.
Now he has Baid that the name of G°d is ap
plied to creatures and therefore not a proof that
Christ is truly God. It is admitted that such
accommodated uses are made of the name
" God." But the connection in every such case
explains that it is used in a qualified sense. But
there are passages in whicbthe name " God" is
applied to Christ without any qualification, and
in such an emphatic manner as to demonstrate
that he is in an absolute and unqualified sense
the true God. For instance in Rom. ix. 5, it is
said of Christ," Who is over all, God, blessed
forever." If over all surely he is God. Will
my opponent tell us in the face of this. text, that
Christ is only one of " God's many ?"
Compare thisexpressive and unqualified lan
guage respecting Jesus Christ, with'the careful

ly guarded expression in the following text,,
where the name of God is applied to men •" I
have said, Ye are gods ; and all of you are
children of the Most High ; But ye shall die
.like men, and fall like one of the princes."
Ps. lxxxii, 6,7.
These who are palled " God's" shall die like
men and fall like one of the princes. But Jesus
Christ is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.
You see here the distinction. It is plain and
forcible. I ask now will that text dp as clear
proof that Christ is truly God.
" Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con- ,
cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever." Amen. Rom. ix. 5.
This text is conclusive.
If any thing can be more emphatic on this
point it is found in the following passage :
" And we know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding, that we
may know him thas is true : anclwe are in'him
that is true, even in bis Son Jesus Christ. This
is the true God, and eternal life." John v. 20.
, I now ask your particular attention to the
following argument drawn from the book of'
Revelations. ¦' And he that sat upon the throne said, Be
hold, I make all things new. And he said unto
me, Write ;' for these words are true and faith
ful. And he said unto me, It Is done. I am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that isa'.hirst, of the foun
tain of the water of life treeiy. He that over-
cometh shall inherit all things ; and 1 will be
his God, and he shall be my son." Rom. xxi. 5
7 8. Now who is it that gives the water of life
freely? I mantain that it relates to Jesus
Christ. The person in this text, is he who gives*'
the water of life freely. But Christ gives the
water of life. See Christ standing in the temp-
pie and crying, while they poured the water
round the altar. ",If any man thirst, let him
come unto me and drink." John vii. 27.
Again it is said Rev. vii. 17. " The Lamb that
sitteth in the midst of the throne shall feed them
and lead thera to the fountain of living water."
That Christ is-ahe subject of this texl will ap
pear further by comparing it with others of"
which there can be no doubt.
It is the " Alpha and Omega."
Christ is the Alpha and Omega;
" Andbehold, I come quickly ; and my reward
is with me,' to give every man according as bis
wPrk shall hi. ¦¦¦ i am Alpha and Omega,' the

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTEINE OF THE TRINITY.

18

heginning and the end, the first and ' the last."
Rom. xxii. 12 13.
Here Alpha and Omega is the person who was
to come quickly with his reward, to give to
every man as his work should be.
But it was Jesus Christ that was to come
quickly. " I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these
things." Verse 16.
" For I testify unto every man that heareth
the words of the prophecy of this book." Verse
18. "He which testifieth these things saith surely
I come quickly. Amen. Even so come Lord
Jesus." Verse 20.
The argument stands thus : — Christ is he that
was to come quickly. He that was to con e
quickly was the Alpha and Omega.
The Alpha and Omega is the person speaking
and spoken of in the first text.
" And he that sat upon the throne said, Be
hold, I make all things new. And he said unto
me, Write ; for these words are true and faith
ful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst, of the foun
tain of the water of life freely. He that over-
cometh shall inherit all things ; and I will be
his God, and he shall be my son." Rom. xxi. 5,
6,7. I will now go back to Chapter 1.
" Behold, he cometh with clouds ; and every
eye shall see him, and they also which pierced
him : and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha
and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty." Rev. i. 7, 8.
This is entirely conclusive, if it can be shown
to be the words of Christ.
It has been shown in the preceding argu
ment, that Christ is the Alpha and Omega.
The context here confirms this position, as
follows. " I 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, what thou seest, write in a book,
and send it unto the seven churches which are
in Asia ; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and
unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto
Sardis, and Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And I 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,
clothed with a garment down to the foot, arid
girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His
head and his hairs were white like wool; as
white as snow ; and his eyes were as a flame of
fire ; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they
burned in a furnace ; and his voice as the sound
of many waters. And he had in his right hand
seven stars ; and out of his month went a sharp
two-edged sword : and his countenance was as
the sun shineth in his strength. And when I
saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid
his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear
not ; I am the first and the last : / am he that
liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive
for evermore, Amen ; and have the keys of hell
and death." Rev, i. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18.
This is Christ without a doubt. "lam he
that liveth, and was dead." Verse 18.
He is "the Alpha, and the Omega." Verse
11. '• The first and the last." lb. It is repeated,
verse 17.
It has now been made clear that Christ is the
person, who declares himself to be the " Alpha
and Omega," the first and the last. The full
force of the name God, therefore is applied to
Christ, in Chapter xxi. 6, 7.
MK. MAT'S SECOND SPEECH.
Mr. Chairman. In the course of the remarks
of my brother Lee in his last speech he gave us
a reason for the making of creeds. I will first
look at that reason. It was this. Creeds ex
press more distinctly than the Bible does the
truths of religion which it is necessary to be
lieve. Now, Sir, this is to assume that the
makers of creeds are better teachers of religion'
than Jesus Christ and his Apostles were. Andl
if this be true, then does it put creeds in the
place of those truths which our blessed Saviour
declared were the foundation of his church.
The which if a man have and doeth them Jesus
said, " I will liken him unto a wise man who
built his house upon a rock. And the rain de
scended and the floods came and the winds blew
and beat upon that house and it fell not, for it
was founded upon a rock." But is it possible
for human skill to be thus superior to the divine
revelation, the words of which are able to make
us wise unto salvation ? I think not. Now if
it were necessary to have the fundamental
truths of religion expressed in the language
of the Presbyterian confession of faith or of ttte
Articles of the English church, why has not the

14

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THF, TRINITY.

author and finisher of our faith himself so stated
them ? I pause for a reply,
It is my honest convictifti often times repeat
ed that JeEUs Christ is the best teacher of his
own religion. And his words are amply 'suffi
cient They are just suited to the wants of the
world. For the wisest purpose they are so left
full of instruction as to be adapted to the high
est capacity and tax to the utmost the greatest
intellect, while it affords the simplest mind
abundant nourishment. " Herein" says one of
. the same scriptures " are shallows where a lamb
may sjp and greater depths where an elephant
may quaff."
But I ask Can a child, accept the statement
of these labored propositions of religious faith
and comprehend them ? No sir. And it is be
cause I would save the young and the enquir
ing after truth from becoming entangled with
this yoke of bondage that I protect against min
isters assuming to gather up these speculative
statements and incomprehensible propositions,
and demanding our consent or professed belief
of the same, or refuse to allow any man claim^o
be a Christian. The office of the minister is not
to dictate forms of belief, but to entreat, to
^persuade, aye, even to compel men to come to
the feet of Jesus and learn of him. Not to learn
what he may have taught brother Lee or myself
Sir, or any one else, but to " learn" what Christ
may teach himself.
Now to assume that he will not teach others,
but they must take their faith from our words, is
to make a fearful assumption. We Unitarians
sir are not So presuming. We only presume to
teach those who come to us what is the faith of
Jesus, as it was taught by Jesus, in the words of
Jesus himself and his apostles.
'¦• My brother says he wishes me to say explicit
ly in what sense I believed Jesus Christ to be
the Son of God. I will do it sir. Whosoever
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons
of God. To Jesus Christ was given the Spirit
not by measure, and therefore he is the dearly
beloved Son of God. And if we receive him as
our instructor, guide and pattern, he will give
us power to become the Sons of God. Are
not we called the Sons of God and even joint
heirs with Jesus Christ — yes sir, even joint
heirs with Jesus ? Let not my brother charge
me with attempting to bring Christ down to us,
It is not so. We may be aspiring ; but our am
bition is to be more and more like Christ. And
in the diligent use of the means of grace to be

come nearer allied to Christ. That is my grea*
heresy. My brother says that I in my expositions of
scripture will make him a mere creature, and in
no way above Paul. Well he himself calls
Christ the " first born of every creature," And
he is doubtless created by God, just as much as
you and I are creatures of God.
With these few remarks I shall now give at
tention to some of the texts he haB quoted. The
first to be noticed are Isaiah vii. 14— ix. 6.
In these passages the . prophet does not say
that the child shall be Immanuel, "God with us"
o,r that he shall be the wonderful, Counsellor,
the mighty God, the Everlasting Father— bnt
that he shall be called by these names— names
certainly not any more significant of deity
than many names that were given to several of
the distinguished Priests, Prophets, Judges,
princes of Israel— one of whom was called "My
God"— another " My God Jehovah"— another
" My God himself —not to mention many others
of like kinds. The bestowment of these titles
upon Jesus, therefore, at most only puts'! him
into th/category of, those whom St. Paul alludes
to 1 Cor. viii. G, " the many in Heaven
and on earth who are called Gods," but still are
not the one living and true God. ,
I am willing therefore to let the passages
stand as they do, and weigh all that they can in
favor of Bro. Lee's proposition. For the most
he can possible prove by them is that Jesus like
Eli, Elijah, Elihu, and many other priests and
prophets, was called God. , , *
I will only add that if these divine titles were
prophetically applied to Jesus Christ, they were
primarily applied to some person who was about
to be born when the first passage was uttered by
Isaiah, and had been born when he uttered toe
second passage. That the person referred to
in both cases was Hezekiah is the opinion of
several distinguished orthodox commentators —
as well as several Unitarian ones — and still mora
is it the opinion of that remarkable man and
very learned theologian Ram Mohan Roy — the
Hindoo Rajah who examined the question with
out any of the preposessibns of a Christian sec
tary. But the exposition of this would take up
much time—that can be better spent — for it
matters very little whether it were Hezekiah, or
some other person, to whom these mighty names
were primarily given..
The following isfromProff. Stuart's Commen
taries on the Hebrews, as quoted by John Wil
son in bis " Concessions of Trinitarians"— pub

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

16

lished 1842. Manchester, England, at Riding's
¦Court, St. Mary's Gate.
" The birth of a child to be called Emmanuel,
who was to spring from a virgin, is predicted ;
which birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that,
within some three years (comp. v. 14 with 15)
the land of Judah should be delivered from the
confederated kings of Israel, and Syria, who
had invaded it. Originally and literally, this
seems applicable only to the birth of a child
within that period of three years ; for how could
the birth of Jesus, which happened seven hun-
•dred and forty-two years afterward, be a sign
to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom
was to be freed from his enemies ? Such a child
it would seem, was born at that period, for in
chap, viii. 8,10, he is twice referred to, as if
then present or at least then living." [This
prophecy in its " primary and lower sense" is
similarly explained by Calmet and H. Home: in
his introduction to the study of the Scrip
tures.— Ed. of Concessions.
Grotius says — " Will be given — Hezekiah who
was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by
the Chaldean interpreter, to relate in the same
manner but in a more excellent sense to the
Messiah." Samuel White, Fellow of Trinity college,
about one hundred years ago, wrote a commen
tary on Isaiah. He says on this point :
"That is, he (king Hezekiah) shall reign in the
throne of David' as the metaphor signifies, and as
the prophet more fully explains himself in the
following verse, which cannot be literally true
of our Saviour, whose kingdom was not of this
world, as David's was ; but in'a second and sub
lime sense, the expression denotes that form
which God devolved on his Son, of governing
his spiritual kingdom, the Church." — lb.
Mr. May then introduced to notice the passage
in John i. 11-4, saying : —
Probably there is no other passage, in the
whole New Testament about .the meaning of
which so much has been written. Neither Trin
itarian nor Unitarian commentators themselves
are agreeed as to the signification of Logos
here translated " the word" — nor of the phrase
— translated " the beginning." I do not
expect that I can remove all obscurity from this
passage — but I do expect to show that it gives
little or no support to the doctrine of the su
preme deity of Jesus Christ — much less will it
help my brother Lee to prove the proposition
he is contending for — that there are three equal

persons in the Godhead- for there is not? an al
lusion here to the Third Person, the Holy Ghost
If he was with God — then he was God only
in a sense compatible with the relation implied
by' the preposition with.
It is fair, nay it is imperative upon us, to in
terpret every part of an author's book as far a»
possible in accordance with the known purpose,
and intention for which ho wrote it.
At the close of the 20th Chapter of his Gos
pel ; in which John had been giving an account
ol Christ's first interviews with his disciples after
his resurrection, the Apostle says — " these are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God." And no one of the
gospel narratives contains so many declarations
that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself
and it is from the pen of this very apostle that
we have the record of Christ's most distinct
denial of divine attributes. Nay, in this very
1st chapter 18th'verse, we have a statement
which should go, far to explain the meaning of
the writer in the foregoing verses — he says in
the 18th verse, " No man hath seen God at any
time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared hhn." In ac
cordance, with the doctrine here, and in so many
other parts of his gospel declared, I think we
may and ought to expound these introductory
sentences now under consideration.
In the Epistle of John there are many things
earnestly written against pertain erroneous doc
trines then prevailing respecting the person of
Christ. Irameaus, who lived in the early part of
the 2d century, who was a pupil of Polycarp —
Iraeneaus tells us in his work against Heresy,
that John wrote his gospel for the express pur
pose of refuting the false and absurd notion*,,
which were beginning to spread in the churches
of Asia Minor respecting the nature of it.
" Now, the Gnostics maintained that the Su
preme God dwelt in the remote heavens, sur
rounded by chosen spirits, Aeons, as they called
them, and gave himself very little concern with
what took place upon earth ; that the world was
created by an inferior and an imperfect being,
who was also the. author of the Jewish dispen
sation — that Christ, one of the Aeons, was sent
by the Supreme God to deliver men from the ty
ranny of this Gre&Jor, and from the yoke of his
law ; that there were also various created spir
its or Aeons, maintaining different offices, inde
pendently, for the most part, of the Supreme
Deity, the names of some of which Aeons were
Life, Light, and particularly the Logos, which

16

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

represented the Divine Reason, orWisdom; that
the Aeon Light became incarnate in John the
Baptist. All these spiritual existences were re
presented as distinct from each other and from
the Supreme God."
Is it not very plain that this introduction to
John's gospel was well adapted, as we are told
by Ineneaus it was intended to correct these er
rors. Let us now look at the passage in the
light which history throws upon the purpose
for which it was written'.
No one has denied, and many orthodox Com
mentators have allowed that a correct interpre
tation of the word " Logos," would be the Rea
son or the Wisdom of God, although Dr. Adam
Clarke thinks it would have been better if Lo
gos had not been translated at all, but left to
stand, Logos, as in the original.
In the beginning, cannot, as Prof. Stuart and
many other orthodox Commentators allow, be
nnderstood to mean from all eternity, because
eternity had no beginning. Whether the Evan
gelist hetfe referred to the beginning of all time,
or to the beginning of the gospel dispensation,
5s not very clear. Judging from the frequent
use this same Apostle ,has marie of this phrase
in other parts of his writings (ch. xv. 27, xvi.
4 ; 1 John, i. 1, ii. 7 ; 2 John, v. 6 ; also Luke,
i. 2,) many incline to the supposition that he
meant the beginning of the gospel, and commen
ced his history of the new or spiritual creation
fn a manner similar to Moses' account of the
first — the material creation. Whichever may
have been in his thought, he declares that " In
the beginning was the Reason or the Wisdom of
God," as was declared in Proverbs viii., that
this Wisdom was with God, that it was God and
not an Aeon, a distinct being from God ; that
it was God, just as much as God was Love,
which the same Apostle declares in his 1st Epis
tle, iv. chap., 8th verse.
The attributes of Wisdom, Love and Power,
are so essential to the nature and character of
the Supreme Jehovah, that either of them may
be put for him, just as we, in our day, may say
of a great orator — he is eloquence itself ; or of
an excellent woman — she is goodness itself
All things were made by this Wisdom of God,
and not by an inferior being, one of the Aeons,
as the Gnostics taught. ",In him," referring to
Wisdom as a person, or as God himself, " was
life, and the life was the light of men ;" thus,
you perceive, absorbing into the one God the
wisdom, the life and the light which the Gnos
tics distributed among several Aeons, or divine

persons. He then speaks of John the Baptist,
and declares that he was not the' light, but that
he was sent to bear witness of the light ; thus
denying the doctrine of the Gnostics, that an
Aeon which they called Light was incarnated
in John. In the 12th and 13th verses he announ
ces the same greit truth declared by Paul in
Rom. viii. 14, that as many' as are led by the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God ; and
'hen, in the 14th verse, declares, that the same
wisdom that had been with God from the begin
ning, was signally manifested in the person of
Jesus Christ, who was full of grace and truth,
and in whom, John tells us, that he a.nd his fel
low disciples, (we) beheld the glory (not of God
himself,) but the glory of the only begotten
Sou of the Father. Thus bringing the com
mencement of his narrative Into harmony with
the close of it, and setting Jesus before his
readers as the Christ the Son of God!
I cannot expect that you, sir, or my brother
Lee, or any who have been accustomed from
childhood to read this introduction to John's
gospel as an explicit statement of the Deity of
Christ, will at once, or very readily accept the
exposition I have now given of this very obscure
passage, about 'which theologians — Trinitarian
as well as Unitarian — have differed so mtich ;
but it seems to me to be authorized by the inti
mations we have of the design of St. John in
writing his gospel, and to be incumbered with
fewer and lesser difficulties than the common
orthodox exposition.
At any rate, it certainly cannot be fairly
claimed that the deity of Christ is here announ
ced, unless modern readers know better what it
means than the writer himself/for he declares
that he beheld in the Word made flesh only the
glory of the dearly beloved Son of God.
Heb. i. 8, also was quoted by brother Lee.
Now I ask you to look at this passage. It
speaks of " thy fellows," in relation to ChriBt.
This certainly expresses the idea of inferiority
to the Supreme Being. It is further said —
" Thou has loved righteousness, and hated ini
quity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath an- -
ointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows." Now, unless my brother succeeds wholly in
his arguments, it cannot be allowed that the
Supreme Being has any fellow, or equal com
panion. If the being spoken to herein be a God,
he is one who has a God who is called " thy
God," as you see. There is no need of any
Commentator nor authority to gloss over these

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE* TRINITY.

11

words, or explain them. The writer plainly in
dicates the inferiority of character. This pas
sage is to be referred to that class of passages
in which the name, God, is used in an accommo
dated sense, and applied to one who is so called,
because he acted under Divine appointment as
a messenger for the carrying out the great and
gracious purposes of God- •
My brother quoted the passage that declares
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ. There is no incompatibility herein with
my views. I believe with all my heart, in the
unity and harmony of the Son with the Father,
in the great work of judgment. The Son is the
great agent to dispense judgment and to sit in
judgment with God. Next only to the Father
does he stand in the universe.
And in closing these remarks, I ask you, Mr.
Chairman and hearers, I entreat you to read, ex
amine, and judge for yourselves. You should
not allow the prejudices of education, nor the
dictates of the minister, to sway your mind.
Be your own student of religious truths, and act
independent of all dictation. Go to Jesus.
Lea'rn of him. He is the best teacher of his re
ligion. And be assured that there is no doc
trine nor truth, of saving importance, that he
has omitted to state plainly in his written word.
And whatever you learn by your 'own study of
the Scriptures will be of incomparably more
value to you, than what you may receive at the
dictation of others.
SECOND EVENING— MARCH 1.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH.
In resuming the discussion I propose to reply
to some things that were offered in the last
speech of my friend. My friendly opponent has
failed to meet my previous arguments, and many
of them he has not examined at all. And cer
tainly if a public disputant examines some of
the arguments of an opponent— passing over
others entirely, it is fair to conclude that he
feels unable to meet the case, unless it was for
want of time. But in this case it was not for
want of time because foreign matter and new
matter were introduced.
And there were some things introduced by
my opponent of a character altogether at vari
ance with the subject under discussion, a com
plete digression from the line of argument,
The creed question was one thing. Why this
was introduced I am hardly able to tell. It was
all wide of the remark and had nothing to do
with the question. It was not only wide of the

mark, but it was a misrepresentation of the
views of those who believe in creeds. It was
such,firstby representing that creeds were a sub
stitute for the Soriptures. Now nothing is more
unfounded than this statement. In my own
cre.ed there is one article that expressly specifies
as essential that we believe in the sufficiency of
the Scriptures. It reads thus :
" The Holy Scriptures contain all things
necessary to salvation : so that'whatsoever is '
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is
not to be required of any man, that it should
be believed as an article of faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation. In the-
name of the Holy Scriptures, we do understand
these canonical books of the Old and New Tes
tament, of whose authority there is no doubt in
the Church."'
And this article must have been known to my
friend. Now so far from creeds being a substi
tute for the Scripture, they require a belief in
the Scriptures. No man can be admitted to
membership in a church having a creed without
balieving in the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Those churches that have no creed, peradven-
ture might receive those who do not believe it.
Second. We are represented by our creed as
claiming to make better theology than Jesus
Christ. Nothing is further from the fact.
It is not to make Detter theology, or different
theology from Christ's, that creeds are formed.
It is to affirm what, in our opinion, Christ's the
ology is.
Either my friend or I embrace fundamental
error. In view of this fact of difference among
men on what is fundamental; there is necessity
for writing down distinctly what they deem fun
damental truth. Hence the origin of creeds.
He would not join my church with the creed it
agrees to as fundamental. Whether I could
join his church, that has no creed, I do not know
and probably never shall.
But there are other reasons for the use of
written creeds.
Some persons put a false construction upon
the Scriptures.
Some have no faith to write.
Some have a faith they do not like to write
down. They wish more sea room to manage
their theological ship. They will not be confin
ed to any specified doctrines on fundamental
principles. Indeed, they have no system at all, of posi
tive truths. Their system is an entire system
of negations from bottom to top, and from side
to side. They deny this, and they deny that :
'but affirm no distinctive truths.

18

DISCUSSION OF THE BOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

S. It represented creeds as the mere dicta-by the surging billows, only anxious to know
that I am sustained by God's eternal truth.
Haying passed over the extraneous matter
that it was deemed proper to introduce to your
attention, I will now notice what was said
which in some sense relates to the argument.
John i. 1. His exposition of thiB text is en
tirely fanciful, and however well satisfied the
audience may have been with the exposition he
gave, it was very evident that he was not him
self satisfied with it. But I will examine his
exposition. 1. He makes the Word to mean Wisdom, one
of the divine attributes.
This is absurd upon its face, as will appear by
reading the entire passage, with his rendering
incorporated into the text.
(1.) In the beginning was the attribute of
of God, Wisdom, and the attribute of God, Wis->
dom, was with God, and the attribute of God,
Wisdom, was God. Or, read it thus, changing
the form of speech, " In the beginning was the
Wisdom of God, and the Wisdom of God was,
with God, and the Wisdom of God was God."
This is worse sense than he put into my
mouth when he talks of God being with himself.
With my view of the Triune nature of God this
is explained by personal distinction in the God
head. But his difficulty admits of no explanation,, as
there is no personal distinction between God
and bis attributes.
(2.) This makes an attribute to have become
flesh. Verse 14 : "And the attribute of God,
Wisdom, was made flesh."
" We beheld his glory." That is, the glory of
God's attribute, Wisdom! And, this, too, is
said to be as of the only begotten, full of grace
and truth ! An attribute full of grace and
truth? (3.) Christdeveloped no more of the attribute,
Wisdom, than he did of the attributes of power
and goodness.
*(4.) Wisdom is not the sense of the original
"Logos." The word usually translated Wis
dom, is Sophia.
" Logos," rendered " Word," signifies a word,
speech, language, &c., but is not rendered Wis
dom. 2. Mr. May comments upon the word "begin
ning." He says it is not eternity, for that had
no beginning. I answer to this, beginning does
not express eternity, but implies it. All back
of the beginning must be eternity. Now, it is
clearly stated, that then the .word was. "VTaa"

tion of the ministry.
Now thjs is an entire mistake. For the con
struction of various ecclesiastical bodies is
such as to prevent the ministry from dictating
if they would. And any such remarks or insin
uations are uncalled. for, and very much out of
place and out of taste. ,
The laymen help make the creed with nine-
tenths of all Protestant denominations. There
was an appeal to the people not to be dictated
to by the ministry, and it was affirmed that it is
not their business to tell the people what to be
lieve. And besides, my friend is the last man to
make such an appeal against ministerial dicta
tion. Of all the pastors in this city, he alone
has been engaged for weeks past in dictating
what it is proper to believe on the question of
the Trinity. He has met with the public assem
blies here for free discussion Sabbath afternoons
and taken active part therein. ' He has adver
tised through the papers, and called the people
to. come and hear from him what it was right to
believe. And his sermons are the creed of his
framing. I repeat it. Of all the ministers
having a pastoral charge, Mr. May has done
more on this subject, probably, than any one in
Syracuse. II. Another matter which has nothing to do
with the argument is, his appeal for sympathy
on the ground of being regarded as a heretic.
I have not called him a heretic. I have only
treated him as a gentleman and a brother. I
brought my views and laid them down at his
feet to be discussed as unsettled questions. As
a denomination, I stand as much alone in this
¦ city as he does.
There is but one church of each denomination,
but I have the smallest church, the less influen
tial church, the poorest church, and preach my
views for less than half the salary for which he
preaches his.
Why should he thus appeal to the sympathy
of the audience ? Instead pf treating him as a
heretic, I have held in abeyance my cherished
sentiments for years. These I have laid at his
feet, and together we have been, thus far, tak
ing them up as unsettled questions. In this dis
cussion such an appeal was out of place. I
have not appealed for sympathy, even when, as
in years gone by, my own mother's children
treated me as a heretic for entertaining senti
ments I held dear. This I was and am willing
to endure ; satisfied to stand as the rock washed

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

19

— and of course could not have been created.
" Was with God" in the unity of the Godhead.
It is then said, " was God." Lest the expression,
" was with God," should be understood to imply
a distinct being : something less than God —
something not God — these words were added,
"And the Word was God ;" or, literally render
ed, " God was the Wbrd." It is all in harmony
with the doctrine of the Trinity but with noth
ing else.
3. He supposes it to have been written as a
refutation of the Gnostics— a sect of he»etics.
(1.) The weight of proof is against it.
It was written too early.
From A. D. 68 to 97, have been the range of
dates by the best critics.
The Gnostics did not, according to the best
authority, attract attention until after the com
mencement of the second century.
(2.) If it be so written, it proves nothing to
his purpose. It is inspiration and tells the
trnth. Mr. May has replied, on the application of the
name of God to Christ, that it is applied to
men. To this I reply — The name of God is not ap
plied to men, without qualification, as it is to
Christ. In every case in which the Hebrew word Eli,
or Eloah, or Elohim, is applied to men, it is al
ways connected with some qualification, or re
mark, or circumstance, which renders it impos
sible to mistake or suppose the true God is
meant. The cases which Mr. May has cited, not only
fail to meet my argument, but absolutely con
found his own.
He has cited six cases, as follows :
" Eli, Eliab, Elihu, Elijah, Ethiel, Lemuel."
In all these cases he has misrepresented the
sense of the Hebrew.
The true sense is as follows. Five out of the
six are derivatives from the Hebrew, El, God,
and like many more such cases, were given to
men as descriptive of their character, or their
faith, as follows :
Eliab, means, "to whom God is Father," not,
" God my Father," as Mr. May says.
Elihu, " Whose God is He ?" that is Jehovah
Not God himself.
Elijah, or Elias, " My Lord is Jehovah," not
" God the Lord."
Ithiel, " God with me."
Lemuel, " Of God," that is, " created."
Eli. This, as a proper name, is not a deriva

tive from El ; nor, as a proper name, does it
mean " My God." It is not spelt as the deriva
tions are. It means " Ascent," and was applied
to Eli as High Priest.
The Saviour's exclamation, Matt, xxvii. 46,
"Eli ;" Mark xv. 34, " Eloi." Quoted from
xxii. 1, Psalms. The Hebrew is a different word
from the name of Eli, the High Priest.
As authority, I refer to Gesenins and Roy,
Hebrew and English Lexicographers.
MK. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
I am sorry that my brother Lee has brought
into this discussion such things as have fallen
from him this evening, in reply to my remarks.
on a former occasion. But it may be inciden
tal to such discussions. I, however, assure ycu
that I did not suppose I had appealed to your
sympathies. I had no such intention. Surely
I was unconscious of having any grievances to
complain of. If I did tax your feelings by ray
appeals to your sympathy, I am sorry for it
and beg your pardon. But I know that how
ever you may have felt, my own heart did not
ache nnder the load. I am sorry that all this
should follow a remark— a mere pleasantry that
dropped from me incidentally — and that warj'
after presenting my views in the language of
Scripture, " and yet I am called a heretic !"
Now, I beg to assure my friends that so far
from needing any special sympathy, I am very
happy in my present relations. It is tpue I
should feel more so if my brethren the minis
ters agreed with me more fully — if they thought
more as I do. I trust I am honest in my views.
And all that I do ask is that you grant that I
am honest.
But I repeat it. I really hope you will par
don me for any, even the slightest pain 1 have
unintentionally inflicted by my appeals to your
sympathy. At any rate, I will take it all back,
and thus relieve you of any tax you may have
felt imposed upon you.
My brother Lee saysj he stands as much alone
as I do. Now I want to know of him if he is
in all respects treated by the clergy of this city
and the church, as I am treated ? Do they re
gard him in the same relation to themselves as
they do me ? The answer to that question will
give precisely my meaning in the remark I
made. I repeat it. I do stand, alone here, j I
expected to, when I came here years ago. If I
had not made up my mind to before, I should

20

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

not have come. And yet I am not alone in the
Cause of God. My Heavenly Father is with
me, and I believe that the truth of God is with
me. But I am sorry for these personal allusions.
I am sure that I do not desire them. It is far
better to have none of these flings at each oth
er in our discussion.
Yqu will remember what I said about creeds.
My^brother Lee represents me as having intro
duced it as an extraneous and out of the way
topic. This, however, is a mistake. I had
made the declaration, that if his statement that
creeds were more easily understood than the
Bible, then I demanded that the doctrine of the
creed be stated in the very words of the Bible.
I insisted, as the right of every Christianwthat
the words expressive of his faith be offered to
him for acceptance in the very words of the au
thor and finisher of our faith. And I insisted,
that no man, nor any set of men, should be al
lowed to draw up in their words a form of faith
in religious matters, for me *o accept. Now,
you will remember with what might he defend
ed creeds as better than the Bible.
I asked him to furnish me even one text that
explicitly contained the doctrine of the Trinity.
But he did not furnish it. And I insisted, and
I do insist, that I do not regard, nor ought any
Christian to regard the words or teaching of
any men who have ever lived, as we should the
teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, in this mat
ter. If, therefore, Jesus Christ has left us with
out a creed, then it is clear to my mind'that it
is better to be so, and that no creeds ought to
be formed by men to finish up the Saviour's
work ! He has authorized no one to do any
such work.
My brother Lee said, that although we differ
about the Bible, he and I agreed on the creed,
as to what it meant. Bnt this is not correct.
I consider his creed teaches that there are three
Gods. But he does not so understand it. Is
there any agreement, then, between us ? And
are we to receive it as any evidence of the su
perior excellence of creeds.
Indeed they are most difficult of apprehen
sion, and many serious disturbances among the.
ologians have arisen from misunderstanding
about their meaning. And another more seri
ous objection to them is, that they untangle the
unskillful and unlearned, when, under strPngre

ligious emotions, they enter the churches. Of
ten have I seen young converts, of only a .few
months old in the church, arrayed in the most
imposing and solemn manner and enquired of
as to their belief in a dozen or more articles,
any one of which would require months of in
vestigation fully to comprehend.
I hope you will remember that my appeal
was not an appeal against the ministers, but in
favor of your studying for yourselves the truths
you -would believe. And I repeat it. I intend
ed no appeal against the ministry. Bnt I do
say, that so long as they presume to come, with
their expositions of divine truth, between the
minds and hearts of men, and God and his
Christ, so long do they interpose a cloud of hu
man mysticism before the radiance of ineffable
light. Ministers should not dictate in matters
of religion. The Author and Finisher of our
faith, he alone should be our authorized teach
er, and our faith should be based only on what
he shall teach. And I promise you that, so far
as my ministrations are concerned, whenever I
shall perceive that any one has so learned of
Christ as to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,
and live>soberly, righteously and godly in this
present world, I will not doubt that he has be
come wise unto salvation, and not trouble my
self or him with enquiries into his speculative
opinions upon these matters of doubtful ' dispu
tation. What I did say, however, will be fully re
ported, and I hope you will read it for your
selves, in justice to me, in justice to tbe minis
try, and in justice to this discussion.
My brother Lee attempted to refnte my ex
position of John i. 1-14. Now it is useless to
go over that exposition again. If, however,he
denies that the word Logos properly means
Wisdom, he assumes what some of the ablest
defenders of the orthodox faith have not dared
to assume. B'ut I cannot go over again, at this
time, all I then said, It will also be published,
and \ hope you will read it carefully. To trav
el over that ground again would prevent pro
gress in our discussion.
My friend has attempted to disprove the cor
rectness of the translations I gave you of the
Hebrew names of God, as applied to man.
They were not my translations, however, bnt
Uhose of orthodox Trinitarian writers. I did

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

n

not expect that they would be denied % him.
He has also said, that when the name of God
is given to men, it is always qualified so as to
forbid the idea of divinity being expressed in
reference to any creature. And,L,he said, too,
that whenever it was applied to Christ it was
unqualified and absolute in its application. And
yet, last night, I quoted to you from Heb. i. 9,
a passage in which the connection plainly indi
cates that it was in a subordinate sense.
Now, you remember with what tremendous
emphasis my brother Lee quoted the words in
the eighth verse, " Tby throne, 0 God, is for
ever and ever ;"- and yet read the comment of
the Apostle in the ninth verse, "Therefore God,
even thy God, -has anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows." Now conld lan
guage be plainer to qualify and limit the appli
cation of the name God to Jesus Christ, show
ing his inferiority.
But to return to the exposition of John, i. 1.
My brother Lee denied that the word Logos is
ever translated Wisdom. Now, I want to ask
him if. he means to say that Logos is not trans
lated Wisdom ? (Mr. Lee answered, " It is
not, by any Greek Lexicographer that I have
consulted.") Mr. May here introduced various quotations
from criticisms on the word Logos.
Mr. May then said — 1 now return to make
an appeal that I have a right to make. It is
this. For proof of the truth or falsity of the
doctrine of the Trinity, I appeal mainly to the
teachings of the New Testament. And , I do
not think it is perfectly kind in my brother Lee
to complain that I have not noticed all the
lexts that he has quoted, and infer therefrom
that I am unable to meet the case. There has
not been time yet. But if it be necessary, I
assure you that I will reply to every one of
them, if he thinks fit. He said, in reference to
texts I brought forward, and not very gracious
ly, I thought, that he would notice them when
he pleased. He wishes to pursue his course,
and so do I mine. I promise him, however, to
avoid nothing that may be adduced as evidence
or argument in favor of what I regard a, system
of tremendous error, and which is the basis of
a system that substitutes something else for
Christianity, and hinders the progrefcs' of the
gospel more than all things else. ' And as I am

set for the defence of the truth, I am under the
necessity of opposing this system of error, in
my own pulpit and elsewhere, until convinced
that I am mistaken, or satisfied of the unrea
sonableness of my course.
I now say, and at the hazard of repeating
some things before stated, no person who has
not been trained up in the belief of the Trinity
would detect any evidence of it in the Old Tea*
tament. The strict unity of God was the fun
damental doctrine of the religion promulgated
by Moses and taught by .the prophets. No
idea of a Trinity, in that unity, seems to have
found its way into the Hebrew mind. If the
doctrine be true, it was not revealed by any of
the prophets of the old dispensation.
If it be the corner stone of the Christian
system of doctrines, it was Ief| for the founder
of that system, or some of those who were or
dained by him the preachers of his gospel, to
announce and define this marvellous peculiarity
in the unity of the Godhead. It was all the
more necessary that they shOuld be explicit on
this point, because sueh a doctrine would be so
new and unexpected to the Jews, and so hard
to be by them believed.
If this doctrine were self-evidently true, or
highly probable — if it accorded readily with the
doctrines already revealed — slight intimafaoiis
of it, occasional allusions to it, might have been
sufficient to have ensured its prompt reception,
as of the doctrine of immortality. But, stand
ing as this doctrine does opposed, to, inconsis
tent with the great leading essential truth of
revealed religion — the unity of God— we might
reasonably expect to have it distinctly stated,
and earnestly enforced, by the founders of the
New Faith. For as I said before, if this doc
trine be beyond the invention of the human in
tellect and incomprehensible by it even after it
has been revealed, surely we .may not safely
trust an uninspired mind to devise the form of
words, in which the great mystery must be
presented to men — and accepted- by them in
order to, salvation.
Now, therefore, I call upon my opponent
here to point me to a single passage in the
whole New Testament, where this doctrine of
the Trinity is explicitly stated, a single passage
in which it is stated as explicitly as it isjn this
article of the creed of his own church— which

22

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

is the thesis of our discussion. I ask for one
single passage from the lips of Jesus Christ or
any one, the greatest or the least Of his apos
tles, in which it is declared that in the God
head there are three persons of one substance,
power and eternity ? Look at the doctrine,
and tell me whether — if it be a true one, it
does not involve such violent improbabilities,
that it ought to have qeen carefully stated, and
solemnly enforced upon us by an authority as
high at least as one of the accredited apostles
of Christ, if not indeed, by the great Master
himself — the author and finisher of our faith ?
Look at the doctrine we are discussing— -not
only does it seem to teach that there are three
Gods in the one God, and to declare that each
is equal to either of the other two — but it in
volves, as we learn from the developement of
it in the 1st and 4th articles of the creed, the
farther most incomprehensible of all proposi
tions, ever offered to the acceptance of the
human understanding, namely, that the Holy
Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son,
and yet that the Holy Ghost conceived the Son,
that is, became the mother of the person from
it proceeded ; that is to say, if there ^be fany
meaning in the words intelligible to my mind,
that the Holy Ghost emanated, proceeded, came
out from her own offspring. But I cannot show
this doctrine to be more unreasonable, more in
comprehensible than it is acknowledged to be
by many of its stoutest advocates. From a
mass of acknowledgements that I have before
me to this effect, I have room only for a couple.
Bishop Beverage in his Private Thoughts on
Religion, says, " I ever did, and ever shall, look
upon those apprehensions of God to be the
truest, whereby we apprehend him to be the
most incomprehensible, and that to be the most
true of God which seems most impossible to
ns," — and after going on to show that this is
the character of the doctrine of the Trinity,
he breaks out " 0 heart-amazing, thought de
vouring, unconceivable mystery ! "Who can
believe it to be true of the glorious Deity 1"
The famous Dr. South says, " that any one
should be both Father and Son to the same
person [to David,] tfiat he should produce him
self ; be cause and, effect, too ; and so the copy
give being to its original, seems at first so very
strange and nnaccountable, that, were it not to

be adored as a mystery, it would be exploded
as a contradiction." Sermons vol. iii. p. 240.
Now I ask my brother, and every other
Trinitarian, where Christ or either of his Apos
tles ever set up this mystery to be adored — I
require him to show me where in one instance
the author and finisher of our faith or either
of his apostles, has intimated that we are to ac
cept as true a statement so inconceivable as this,
in the proposition before us, Viz., that *' in uni
ty of this Godhead there are three persons of
one subs.ance, power and eternity."
( Mr. Chairman, I am not alone, in feeling as
I do, the right and the necesBity'of pressing this
demand for some explicit statement of this
most mysterious, incomprehensible, and self-
contradictory doctrine, made by an authority
higher than that of any church on earth. Hear
Sir, the words of a man, whose praise has been
in all the churches ; whose Psalms and Hymns
have been used for the last hundred years more
than those of any other author ; and .whose
piety and biblical learning have never been
doubted. I allude to Dr. Isaac Watts. For
many years he had lived in the belief and writ
ten in the defence of the doctrine of the Trin
ity, which had been instilled into him in his
youth. But light broke into his mind upon
this subject, He commenced anew the study
of the Scriptures with reference to it ; and af
ter long, diligent prayerful examination, became
satisfied that such a doctrine was not to be
found there. Hear an extract froni his solemn
address to the Deity and you will see that he
only asked for the same that I have.
"Hadst, thou informed me, gracious Father,
in any place of thy word, that this divine doc-,
trine is not to be understood by men, and yet
they were required to believe, I would have
snbdued all my curiosity to faith, and sub
mitted my wandering and doubtful imagina
tions, as far as it was possible, to the holy and
wise determinations of thy word. But I cannot
find thou hast any where forbid me to under
stand it or to make these enquiries. My con
science is the'best natural light thou hast put
within me, and since thou hast given me the
scriptures, my own conscience bids me search
the scriptures, to find out truth and eternal life:
It bids me try all things, and hold fast all that
is good. And thy own word by the same ex
pressions, encourages this holy practice. "" I
have, therefore, been long searching into this
divine doctrine, that I may pay thee dne honor

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

23

with understanding. Sorely I ought to know
the God whom I worship, whether he be one
pare and simple being, or whether thou art a
threefold deity, consisting of the Father, the
Son, and the holy Spirit.
"Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been
pleased, in any one plain scripture, to have in
formed me which of the different opinions about
the holy Trinity, among the contending parties
of christians, had been true, thou knowest with
how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy my unbi
assed heart would have opened itself to receive
and embrace the discovery. Hadst thou told
me plainly in any single text, that the Father
Son, and holy Spirit, are three real distinct
persons in thy divine nature, I had never suff
ered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts'
nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of
assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead
of divine doctrine ; but I should have humbly
and immediately accepted thy words, so far as
it was possible for me to understand them, as
the only rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been
pleased so to express and include this proposit
ion in the several scattered parts of thy book,
from whence my reason and conscience might
with ease find out, and certainity infer this
doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all
my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill
and activity, to have found out this inference
and ingrafted it into my soul."
Now my brotlier (said Mr. May turning to
Mr. Lee) I am precisely in the position of Dr.
Watte. I wish only to be told plainly " in any
single text that the Father the Son, and holy
Spirit, are three distinct persons" in one divine
nature. Do this and I will bow submissively
to its authority, and try to bring my under
standing to comprehend it, however mysterious
may appear to be the doctrine that it teaches.
But I cannot submit to the binding force of
the statements of a human creed, nor any ar
rangement of mere human opinions as a test of
faith and Christian character. These are what
are objectionable, because they demand assent
on penalty of a denial of Christian character,
and refusal of admission to the communion of
the Church. This is the evil of creeds and not
merely that they express belief of truths spe
cified. It is the use made of them, Sir. But
I must trespass no further.
MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.gi
This creed idea it is apparent is destined to
•ccupy undue attention, which I regret as it is
really foreign to the discussion. My opponent
denied that the creed was expressed in the Ian
gnage of the Bible apd very earnestly repu

diates their claim to his respect or faith. Now
no man writescreeds for any such purpose as
he represents. No one asks or demands of
him or any one else compliance with the creed
they may believe. I write creeds for myself
and for those who agree with me. And so of
all other. And that is all they are for — to-ex
press their opinion of what the Bible teach
es. Now will he write down his own views of
what he considers gospel truth ?
Mr. May says he understands my creed to
teach that there are three Gods. But that is
a sophism, It does not give the point. It is
this. Does he understand me to believe that
there are three Gods. Now our dispute about
the Bible is not what somebody believes it to
mean, but what the author means, whose wri
tings we quote. We disagree about the mean
ing of the authors of the texts quoted from the
Bible. But we do not disagree about what the
author of the creed means that is quoted. And
I again repeat that on the creed we are agreed,
while on the Bible we disagree, as to the mean
ing of the author.
Mr. May next rsfers to my quotation of
Heb. i. 8, and complained that I did not notice
the 9th verse that he supposes qualifies the ap
plication of the name God to Christ. Now I
did not designedly omit to notice the passage
he refers to. But passed it by for want of
time. There is not so much force in the quo
tation as he would give to it. He said you will
remember, that I denied that there were any
cases in which the name " God" was applied
to Christ, with qualification or limitation. But
this is a mistake. What I said was — that when
the name God is applied to any creature, there
is always something in the connection which so
limits it, that it is impossible to suppose that
the Son of God is meant. But that the word
God is applied to Christ not only without lim
itation, but in such connection as necessarily
to lead us to believe that the Supreme God is
intented. I shall hereafter examine that por
tion of the passage to which your attention
was invited by Mr. May. It appropriately
comes in to a subsequent part of my argument.
I now turn to his remarks on the word Logos.
I admit that " Reason" is one of the significa
tions given to Logos. But this does not bring
him within the scope of his own argument, for

24

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Reason is never used as a theological term to
express an attribute of God.
He thinks me unkind in pressing him to re
ply. Now I will not be considered unkind,
and therefore I take it all back and say he may
reply or not' as he thinks best. I admit that
he is under no obligation to reply to me unless
he is disposed so to do.
He complains that I did not notice some
texts that he, has quoted, and commented
upon. To this I reply that I had supposed it
was his duty to examine the pertinency of texts
quoted by me on the affirmative of this ques
tion. And his reply to those quotations it would
be my duty to examine. But according to the
established rules of discussion certainly it can
not be my duty to examine his criticism of
texts supposed by him to be on my side of the
question, but which I have never quoted. And
it is impossible for him to know that I would
introduce them. So^that such a course on his
part may do nothing in forwarding the discus
sion, bnt be all lost time. But I will waive
all that.
My opponent has offered to accept as author
itative one single text which distinctly and ex
plicitly sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity.
This may seem very fair and generous but no
text could be framed out of human language
which would be explicit in his. estimation.
Amid all the conflicting views of Christendom
you cannot find an individual who professes to
believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures,
who will not say the same thing. There is no
doctrine of the gospel but is disbelieved by
somebody unless it is the simple existence of
God. Vet all these rejectors of all these doc
trines will every one say — show me an explicit
text, and I will believe.
But I will show you that this doctrine is
more explicitly stated than any other doctrine.
There is no one doctrine unless it be as as be
fore stated— the simple existence of God upon
which the Christian world are so generally
agreed. If then there are less dissentients
from this doctrine, than from any other one
doctrine, it is strong presumptive evidence that
it is more explicitly stated than any other one
doctrine. And I expect before the conclusion
of my arguments tp make this appear clear

and full. But there must be time for all this.
As he has said so say I, you must not hurry.
But I do expect to do one of two things cer
tainly, and they are— I shall succeed or fail !
My opponent brings np the creed again in
the matter of the origin and birth of the Son
of God, .and attempts to make out an absurdity
on the assumption that the Divinity was be
gotten by itself. This is however grounded on
a misapprehension of our views tonching the
birth of Christ. Now that which was con
ceived by the Holy Ghost was the humanity that
is all. But Mr. May speaks as though we re
garded Christ as all divine, — body, bones, flesh
and all. But this is not so. Jnst as truly as
we believe he_was Divine so do we believe thrift
he was human also. And that which we be
lieve of his humanity alone, can not be the leg
itimate ground of an assumption of absurdity
as if applied to his divinity. Wo do not so
affirm of his.Divinity, and therefore the absur
dity cannot be properly changed upon our sen
timents. He has laid a great deal of emphasis upon
the " mystery" of the doctrine of the Trinity.
That there is mystery about it I frankly admit.
But there is as much mystery in the unity of
God as there is in his Trinity. God is all mys«
tery. One who knew more than both Of us
said, " Who by searching can find out God."
There is mystery in our own existence. The
union of body and soul, mind and matter is a
mystery. I nm a mystery to myself. And if
Mr. May is not to himself it is because he
knows a great deal less than I do or a great
deal more.
Mr. May has introduced to our attention an
extended notice of Dr. Watts. But what of
that ? It proves nothing, nor is it to the point
in this argument. All it amounts to is this :
Dr. Watts was a Trinitarian in his early days.
In after years, when far advanced in life, he
embraced some of the views that distinguish
Unitarians. There may be some others who
have so changed their views. A greut many
have turned the other way, and from being Uni
tarian in sentiment have become Trinitarian.
Now, I could quote their declarations on my
side of the question. But the rjoint is not how
many, or who, have , changed their views, nor
what they may believe. But it is this. What

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

25

does the Bible teach on the doctrine of the'
Trinity1? Dr. Watts' was doubtless a splendid poet, but
he was never distinguished as a great theologi
an. Poets are rather poor theologians, gene
rally. And if my friend and myself had more
poetry in our heads we should doubtless have
less theology.
I turn now to his quotation from Heb. i. 9,
which speaks of "thy fellow's" as applied to
Christ. There is no contradiction between this
and our theory as Trinitarians, when consider
ed as a whole. He can make it appear contra
dictory with our sentiments, as he gets them np
•for ns, by leaving out our faith in Christ's hu
manity. But we belieye in two natures, hu
man and divine, as possessed by Christ. And
there are passages of Scripture which relate to
liim in one or the other of these natures which
are spoken of separately,' and some in which
both are recognized. And this discrimination
is necessary to the correct understanding of the
Scriptures.' This is the key of the harmony of
divine truths, and without it they cannot be ex
plained. Some of the passages refer to phrist's
human nature, while others refer to his pre-ex-
Istent nature. Now, on this point I will re
mind my friend, Mr. May, that he omitted, on
the last evening, to say whether he believed in
the pre-existence of Christ or not.

I have remarked , before, that it was my de
sign to prove, first :,that the Lord Jesus Christ
was God ; second : that the -Holy Ghost was
tlod ; third : and then prove their unity and
equality with the Father in the Godhead. In
view of this announcement of my purpose so
to arrange the argument, Mr. May gains noth
ing by his- remark that I have not yet proved
the Holy Ghost to be, God. That is to be
.proved as a separate matter. I am laboring at
one point at a time. The single point that has
thus far occupied my attention, is the Divinity
of Christ, which I am to prove first from the
application of the names of God. I am now
'to show you that the name Jehovah is applied
-to Christ.'
The name, Jehovah,' or Lord, is also applied
: to Christ as I Will now prove.
In the Old Testament, where the word Ye-
hovah. or Jehovah, occurs in the Hebrew, our
•translators have usually rendered it, Lord, , and
' •¦ 8 ¦ .- • ¦ ' i

have printed it in capitals to distinguish it from
another word, Adonai, which is also translated
Lord. r
The common reader may know, then, that
where the word Lord is found printed in small
capital letters, Jehovah is the word used in the
original. This word Jehovah is only applica
ble to the eternal God. It signifies the self-
existent ; he who gives existence to others ; he
who was, is, and shall be. I will prove that
this ineffable name, Jehovah, is applied to our
Lord Jesus Christ.
In the New Testament the Greek word,
Lord, is Kurios, by which the Hebrew Jeho
vah is usually rendered in Greek.
This word signifies a Lord, possessor, owner,
master. It is often applied to men, but is also
applied to the Supreme Being.
" Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God." —
Matt. iv. 10.'
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. ''— Matt.
xxii. 39, Mark, xii. 30.
" They were both righteous before God, walk
ing in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless." — Luke, i. 6.
" The temple of the Lord."— Luke, i. 9.
"The angel of the Lord."— Luke, ii.' 9 . ,
" They brought him to Jerusalem to present
him to the Lord." — Luke, ii. 22. ,
" The spirit of the Lord is upon me."— Luke,
iv. 18.
These cases are sufficient to show that the
word Lord, is used in the New Testament to
describe thg„true God.
A few texts will settle, this question.
The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my
right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot
stool." — Psal. ex. 1.
The original here is, " Jehovah said unto my
Ladona." David here calls Christ my Lord.
" While the Pharisees were gathered togeth
er, Jesus ashed them, saying, what think ye of
Christ, whose son is he ? They say unto him,
the son of David. , He saith unto them, How
then doth David in spirit call him Lord ? say
ing, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on
my right hand, till I make thine eiiemies tjiy
footstool. If David then call, him, Lord, how
is he his son ?"— Matt. xxii. 41-45., ,
Christ was David's Lord.,

26

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

>IU. MAY'S SECOND SPEECH, , I
Mr. May rose and commenced his reply by
saying, " I will begin where my brother has left
off— and I will begin with a simple question.
That question relates to the text quoted respec
ting the name Jehovah. It is simply this. How
can one Jehovah sit at the right hand of ano
ther Jehovah, and yet there not be two Jeho
vah's ? And yet he tells us he believes.that there
Is but one Jehovah. Now I dont know what
contradiction is, if that is not contradiction in
plain terms. And I charge him with using a
fqrm of words in his statement, of the doctrine
of God's nature, which involves the tremendous
untruth of three Gods instead of one.
My brother has. said many things which I
omit to notice ; but I invite your attention to
the following passage, he quoted on tiie last eve
ning. " We know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding, that we
may know Him that is true, and we are in him
that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This
is the true God and eternal life." 1 John v. 20.
The word "even" you will find in italics. It is
not in the original. You should therefore read
the passage " and we are in him that is true, in
liis Son Jesus Christ." I'he great John Calvin,
who will not be suspected of favoring my side of
this question, says of this passage, " the apostle
intends to express the meansjof- our union with
Ood, as if he had said that we are in God by
Christ.'' Erasmus, the older contemporary of
Luther and Calvin ; the great scholar of the Re
formation ; Arch.,Tillotson, a great name in the
English Church; Dr. Adam Clark, and others,
interpret this in the same way.. Dr. Blopmfield
even more plainly, " we are in union with the
true God by means, of his Son Jesus Christ."
" Grammatically considered the words " this
is the true God," may refer either to Christ or
to " him that is true." T refer it to God the
Father, who is the chief subject of discourse.
Id. this construction I have the authority of Eras
mus, Grotius, Rossenmuller, and others, three of
the greatest1 Biblical critics. The language of
Grotius is as follows :
-' This is the true God ; namely, he. and none
else whoni Jesus hath declared to be the object
'of worship. The pronoun (outos) "this", not un
frequently relates to a remote antecedent \. (as in
Acts vii. 9; x. 6.) '"And eternal life;" this is said

by metomysing. The apostle means that [God
is the primary and chief author of eternal life.
So also Christ is called life, (John xi. 25 ; xiv,
6,) because next to God the Father he is the
cause of eternal life." , , :
If this does not satisfy my brother ,Lee that
this text is not certainly in his favor, but rather
in mine, I will agree with him to, leave it, until
wo have settled the question between us on oth
er grounds. Then if he establishes Ms position,
I. will give up this to his side of the argument,
but if he fails, I shall hold to it as helping to
support mine,
(Mr. Lee said agreed), Very well, then, said
Mr. May, it is understood, and he (is welcome to
all the benefit, of that concession. He then re
sumed, 'saying, 7
My brother Lee quoted Rom. ix. 5 : " Whose
are the father's, and of whom as concerning the
flesh Christ came, who is over all,' God blesBed
for ever.''
The whole argument of. my opponent depends
upon the punctuation. He knows I trust, and
will not deny, that the original manuscripts of
the New Testament are without punctuation.
The sentences even are not divided from each
other by any marks. The translators therefore
are left to puuetuate as they think the sense re
quires. Now in this case, if we adopt the punc
tuation proposed by Griesbach, or that by
Rosenmuller, both of them Trinitarians, -and
very eminent in Biblical learning, the sense is
materially changed, Let the period , be placed
after the word all, .and it then reads, " of whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is
over all. God be blessed for ever." Which
words are added as a doxology in the midst of
a paragraph. The following is from Wilson's Concessioes
of Unitarians — quotations from Erasmus abridg
ed by Mr. Wilson.
"This passage may be , pointed and rendered
in three different ways. First; of whom*: accor- '
ding to the flesh, is Christy, who is over all. God
be blessed for ever. Second ; of whom,iaccqrd,
ing to the flesh, is Christ, who being God over
all, is blessed for ever. And third, which is
perfectly suitable to the purport of the discourse
"of whom is, Christ, according Jo the, flesh:"
finishing ,the sentence here and subjoining what
follows' " God, who 'is over all, be blessed forev-

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

21

er," as an ascription of praise for our having
secured the law, the covenant, and the prophe
cies, and lastly Christ sent in human nature ;
privileges which God, by his unspeakable coun
sels had bestowed for the redemption of man
kind. And here if the word God be understood
to_ mean the whole sacred Trinity, (as is frequent
ly done in Scripture where for example we are
commanded to worship God and servo him only)
then will Christ not be excluded : but if it bo
explained to denote the person of the father,
(which is a common signification of the term
God, as used by St. Paul when Christ or the
Spirit is mentioned in conjunction) then, though
clear as noon dayjliat, in other places Christ as
well as the Father and the Holy Ghost are called
truly God, this passsage will not be valid to con
fute the Arians ; there is nothing whatever' to
prevent its application to the Father. Those
therefore who contend that in this text Christ
is clearly termed God, either, have little confi
dence in other passages of Scripture, or pay
scarcely any attention to the style of the apos
tle. A similar passage occurs in 2 Cor. xi. 31
" The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
who is blessed forever ;" the latter clause being
undeniably restricted to the Father. If how
ever,, the church teaches that Rom. ix. 5. must
be interpreted of the Deity of the Son, the
the church must be obeyed, though this is not
sufficient to convince heretics, or those who list
en only to the words of Sacred Writ ; but if she
•were to say that that passage cannot be therein
explained in conformity with the Greek she
would assert what is confuted by the thing it
self." If my brother Lee should satisfy me that this
text should be punctuated as it is in our com
mon translation, I should contend that Christ is
God over all only by appointment, only for a
season, until as Paul, 1 Cor. xv.28, tefls us he will
give up the -kingdom to the father. For a seas
on, the Father hath committed; all judgment to
the Son, John v. 22. ; has given all things into
his hands, Matt, xxviii. 18. In this sense Christ
is as he is called in, Acts x. 36. " Lord of all."
God has given him a name 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." L'liil. ii. 10.
I will next notice the following passages :
Isaiah xl. 3: — Matthew iii. 3. — TJie voice
of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye
the* way of the Lord, make straight in the de-
sort a high way for our (rod.
Matthew iii. :.). This is lie that was spoken of
by the prophet Essias saying, the voice of one cry
ing in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight.
The passage in Isaiah is obviously a. glowing-
description of the return of the l.-ntelites from
their captivity in Babylon. Bishop Lowth, the
most distinguished of all the eomraentators up
on Isaiah, thinks those interpreters are mistaken
who can see in this fiunous chapter only a pro
phecy of the coming of Christ, lie maintains
that the primary reference of the prophet was
to the return of the Jews from their long bond
age in that strange land, tn this the Bishop is
followed by Dr. Adam Clarke, who has quoted
pages from the Bishop's commentary into his
own notes. Dr. Lowth says, •• The evangelical
sense o f the prophecy is so apparent and stands
forth in so strong a light that some interpreters
cannot see that it has any other ; and will not
allow the prophecy to have any relation at all
to the return from the captivity of Babylon.
It may be useful therefore to examine more at
tentively the train of the prophet's ideas, and
to consider carefully the images under which he
displays his subject. He (the prophet) hear
a crier giving orders by solemn proclamation to
prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness ;
to remove all obstructions before Jehovah march
ing through the desert — through the wild, unin
habited, impassable country. The deliverance
of God's people from the Babylonish captivity
is considered by him as parallel to the former
deliverance of them from the Egyptian bondage.
God was then represented as their king, leading
them in person through the vast deserts, which
lay in their way to the promised land of Canaan
It is not merely for Jehovah himself that in, both
cases the way was to be prepared, and all ob
structions to, be removed; but for Jehovah
marching in person at the head of his people."
Thus Bishop Lowth and Dr- Adam Clarke
acknowledge, what is indeed obvious to common
sense, that the prophet had in his mind prima
rily the return of his countrymen from their

28

DISCISSION' OF TIIE DOCTRINE OK THE TRINITY.

bondage in Babylon. But the reference which
is made to it in Mathew iii. 3, is supposed by
my brother Lee and by Trinitarians generally
to show that in a higher, a spiritual sense, it was
a prophecy of John the Baptist's appearance as
the forerunner of Olirist. who is here called', "our
God." But if in its secondary, spiritual sense this
title was given to Jesus Christ, to whom was'it
given in its primary sense ? Who was the lead
er of the Hebrews out of their captivity in
Babylon ? Did Jehovah appear in person and
conduct them over the high way that was to be
prepared? No' one, 1 trust, believes that he
did. Certainly my friend though my opponent
in this discussion, will .-not assume that it was
to Jehovah himself, ia person, that the prophet
alluded. It must have been then to him who as
the minister, the servant of God, -conducted the
people of Israel back to their beloved land : un
less my friend prefers to suppose the prophet
meant to personify the spiritual presence of Cod,
that would animate and encourage the people on
their way.
For' the prophet- to have referred to the leader
of his people out of Babylonish captivity, by the
title of •' our God," would not have been so bold
a use of language, as Mas made by Moses in re
ference to himself, (Deut. xxix. 5, 6) : "I have,
led you forty years iu the wilderness, your clothes
are not waxed old upon yon, and thy shoe is not,
waxed old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten
bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong
drink, that ye might know that I am the Lord
your God."
We none of us misunderstand Moses in this '
case. He thought of himself as the agent, the
instrument of God in affecting the deliverance of
his people from Egypt. Tn Exo. vii. 1, " The
Lord said unto Moses, see I have made thee a
God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall
be thy prophet." Thus appointed at the com-
.mencemeht of his great undertaking, he might
with great propriety, and in the same sense, say
of himself at its close, when go' many wonders
had been wrought at his hand, " I am the Lord."
Isaiah in describing that great national deliver
ance, second only in importance' to the one of
which Moses- was the leader, and familiar asjhe
was with the ascription of divine titles to those
who were appointed to do great things as the

agents of the Most High, might very naturally
have spoken of the leader of this new deliver
ance as " God" in the subordinate sense. If
this bo so, the application of the language of this
prophecy to Jesus Christ, surely cannot help
my friend in the least to prove that. he was "our
God" excepting in the same subordinate sense.
Here I have done so far as this passage is
concerned with my argument against the doc-
triue of the Trinity. But as all the importance
it has been supposed to have in the proof of
that doctrine, is derived from the fact that it is
quoted in Matt, as if it were a prophecy of the
appearance of John the Baptist. — I may- as
well here call the attention of my brother Lee.
to the manner in which quotations are made
from the Old Testament by the writers of the
New Testament,- that he may not hereafter
place too much confidence in them.
It will be very evident, I think, to a care
ful reader of the New Testament, that' the
Evangelists and Apostles quoted from the
Scriptures of the Old Testament very much in
the same way that other writers of their 'day
and nation were wont to do ; that is to sayi ap
plying passages from any part of those venera
ted Scriptures, which might seem to them at all
pertinent to the event they were narrating — or
the doctrine or sentiment they were endeavor
ing to illustrate or enforce. And they often
introduced' such quotations by one or another
of these phrases—" as it was written," "as it
was spoken," "thus said," "that it might he
fulfilled," when really the passage quoted had
originally no reference to the matter about
which they of the New Testament were writing,
The Hon. Edward Everett, in his younger
and better days, when he was a minister of re
ligion, wrote an admirable book entitled " A
Defence of Christianity," in refutation of a dis
ingenuous attack that had been made upon it
by Mr. George B. English. In that book he
devotes a chapter to this very matter of quota
tions — that having been one ground on which
the attack was made. ' He says in that chapter,
"I have collected the following among' a multi
tude more examples, which prove that the Rab
bis applied passages of Scripture, historical,
prophetical and preceptive, to events to; which
they could not have supposed them tp have had
any' original reference ; and that there isnodif-

DlSCl'SSlONgOF I'SIK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

29

ference between the forms ' with which they in
troduce mere illustrations and prophecies actu
ally fulfilled."
That the Jewish writers, should have made
snch frequent quotations, on all occasions, from
their Sacred Scriptures is not surprising, seeing
that they comprised the greater part of the lit
erature that was generally disseminated amongst
the people. They were read in all their Syna
gognes every Sabbath day, and it was a part of
the education of their youth to commit to mem
ory large portions of certain of these sacred
books. The only thing to which 1 wish to direct
your attention is that they introduced their
quotations by such phrases as these — " as it is
said" — " as it is written" — ¦'• to fulfil that which
is said" — implying that the event narrated, or,
the doctrine delivered had been indicated afore
time by some one of the sacred writers— though
in fact the passage quoted had no prophetic
reference to the matter they then had in hand.
But this ;was the style of quoting &c. common
among the Jews both before and after the New
Testament was written . It is not strange there
fore, that the writers of the New Testament
should have used the same as we find they did.
Let me give you a few examples.
Extracts from Mr. Everett's Defence, c)'c.
" A man shall not go out on the Sabbath
day with a sword, or a bow, or a shield, a sling,
or a spear. If he do so, he is guilty of sin.
Rabbi Eliezer said, they are ornaments to him.
But the Doctors say, they are not ornaments,
but a disgrace, for it is said, Isaiah xi. 4, they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares and
their spears into pruning hooks, and shall
learn war no more."
" Rabbi Eliezer said, he who does not eat on
the night of the first day of the feast, must do
it on the night of the last day. But the doc
tors decide, that there is no compensation. Of
this it is said, (Eccl. i. 15,) that which is
crooked cannot be made straight, nor that which
is wanting be numbered." ,,.¦•:¦
" When Rabbi Abun entered before the king
of the Romans, the king turned towards him,
Some followed after to kill the Rabbi; but they
saw two sparks of fire streaming from his neck,
and let him go, to fulfil that which is said,

(Deut. xxviii, 10) and the nations shall see that
thou art called by the name of the Lord, and
fear thee.
" Of the future days, it is thus, written in the
Zohar upon Deuteronomy, ' The Lord shall re
turn thy captivity.' What does this signify ?
The Lord shall bring back Israel from captiv
ity, and then the righteous shall return, and be
joined to his place, and then shaU be confirmed
what is written Psalms cxl. 13 : Surely the
righteous shall give, thanks to thy name, the
upright shall dwell in thy presence."
Finally, Rabbi Hoschaia says : " Jerusalem
shall be a torch to the Gentiles, and they shall
come to its light, How is this proved ? Be
cause the Scripture saith, And the Gentiles
shall walk in thy light, and in the Lord's house
shall be established. And this is thai which
was said by the Holy fihost, by the hand of
David, the Icing of Israel, for with thee is the
fountain of life, and in thy light we shall see
light." Ps. xxxvi. 9.
" ,It is the custom, of the Mishn'a and its sup
plements, to adduce the written, Scripture [as
authority,] though what is treated of be not a
matter of written Scripture, but of oral tradi
tion ; still the Scripture is applied to it."
Now, it seems very obvious, that quotations
arc . often made by the writers of the New
Testament from the Old in the same way,.
merely on the principle of accommodation,
when the passage quoted had no prophetic re
ference whatever to the event spoken of, or the
doctrine inculcated by the evangelist or apos
tle. Two or three examples will suffice. After
speaking of Joseph and Mary going with the
infant Jesus into Egypt, Mathew says chapter
ii. 15 : " And he was there until the death of
Herod, that it might be fiulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, out of
Egypt have I called my son." This form of
expression would seem to indicate very plainly
the fulfillment of prophecy. But turn to Hosea
xi. 1, from which this quotation is made, and
you will find " when Israel was.a child, I loved
him, and called my son out of Egypt." Words
spoken of the people Israel, and referred to
what had been done seven hundred years before.
In the same chapter, we find another instance
where the slaughter of the .infants in Bethle
hem is spoken of; (I8th verse) " In Rama was

30

MSCU.SSIOX OF THE OOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping,
and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children, and would not be comforted because
they would not." In the place referred to, the
prophet is alluding to the mourning in Rama,
when the Israelites were carried through into
captivity. In Acts, Peter speaking of the fate of Judas,
describes it as something which must needs be
accomplished, " For it is written let his habi
tation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein,
and his bishoprick, let another take." Words
found in the Psalms, spoken of the enemies of
David, withoutthe slightest reference to Judas.
Again, in John xiv. 36 : Where it is related
that the soldiers refrained from breaking the
legs of Jesus, because he was dead already, the
Apostle says, "For these things were done that
the Scriptures should be fulfilled, a bone of him
shall not be broken." Words that he took from
Exodus xii. 46 : " neither shall ye break a
bone thereof," that is of the paschal lamb.
Sometimes not only the words, but the mean
ing of the sentence quoted is changed in order
to adapt it to the purpose of the writer, and
yet the words " that it might be fulfilled" are
retained. As for example, in Mathew xxvii.
9, 10. Then was fulfilled that which was spo
ken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him
that was valued, whom they of the children of
Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord appointed me." Now, the
allusion here is to a passage in Zachariah, (not
Jeremiah) ; between which however and the
case in hand there is no relation, or similarity
whatever except the mention of " thirty pieces
of silver" and the word "potter."
These examples must suffice. I have made'
these remarks not because I disbelieve that
there are no prophecies in the Old Testament,
of events fulfilled in the New, for I believe
there Were ; but that I may put my brother
Lee on his guard, by reminding him that every
thing which seems at first sight to be introdu
ced in the New Testament as a fulfilment, will
be found on examination not to be so.
THIRD EVENING— MARCH 2.
MR. I,EE-S FIRST SPEECH.
I shall occupy lint little time'in my rejoinder

to Mr. May's remarks of the last evening, where
in he attempts a reply to my arguments. To
my quotation of the passage which says, " The
Lord said unto my Lord." He saj7s " how can
one Lord say to another Lord, sit thou on my
j right hand, unless there are two Lords ?" The'
answer is, just as easy as God could say, " Let ¦
us make man," when there is but one God. Both
cases are explained by a reference to the person
al distinction in the Godhead. The first Lord
js the Father, 1 he second Lord is the Word or
Son. The next point he noticed was 1 John i. 5.
We have agreed to let this passage rest for
the present, he having admitted that its grammat
ical construction is such as may be made to
mean cither. The next quotation criticised is :
Rom. ix. 5 : " Whose are the Father's, and of
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came,
who is over- all, God blessed for ever. Amen." ¦
On this text Mr. May said,
"The whole argument of my Opponent depends"'
upon the punctuation. He knows, I trust, and
will not deny, that the original manuscripts Of
the New Testament are without punctuation.
The sentences even are not divided from each ¦
other by any marks. The translators therefore ;
are left to punctuate as they think the sense
requires." " This passage may be pointed and rendered
in three different ways. First, of whont, accor
ding to the flesh, is Christ, who is over all.
God be blessed forever. Second, of whom, ac- -,
cording to the flesh, is Christ, who being God
over all, is blessed for ever. And third, which ,
is perfectly suitable to the purport of the dis-,
course "of whom is Christ according to the
flesh :" finishing the sentence here and subjoin
ing what follows, "God, who is over all, be
blessed forever," as an ascription of praise for"
our having secured the law, the covenant, and '
the prophecies, and lastly Christ sent in human
nature ; privileges which God, by his unspeak-J
able 6ounselshad bestowed for the redemption
of mankind."
On this text Prof. Stewart has an entire vin
dication of the present rendering of this text in
his 3d letter to Channingl
It is enough to say that to make it read as
Mr. May would have it, he has to add a word >
which is not in the text, "be" — "God be blessed,"1
And this is in fact: an interpolation of the '¦

MSUrSsIO.N' OF 'I'HE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

text, which is not allowable by any correct laws
of criticism.
He quoted these words, •' I have made you a
God unto Pharaoh," to prove that this name
does 'not prove Divinity] But it is added, " Thou
shalt Speak all that I command thee." Again :
" The voice of him that crieth in the Wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight
in the desert a highway for our God." Isa. xl. 3.
On this he quoted from Lowth and Clarke
in proof of my misapplying it. Now it is
very remarkable that so much reliance is put
npon the constructions which men give to these
passages, rather than upon the direct and ex
plicit application made of those passages by the
sacred writers themselves.
In reference to Bishop Lowth 1 cannot deter
mine the correctness of the quotation, as it is
not at my command. But I have consulted
Clarke in his comment on Matt. iii. 3. He says
" This is quoted from Isa. xl. 3, which clearly
proves that John' the Baptist was the person of
whom the prophet spoke.'" Thus it is evident
that Clarke is positively against. Mr. May's
view of the text.
But Mr. May vindicates his construction of
the text by affirming that the New Testament
writers were exceedingly loose in their quota
tions' 'from the Old Testament. To illustrate
this Rev. Mr. Everett was quoted as the quoter
of the Rabbies- It is only necessary to say in
reply, that, the manner in which the Babbies,
who are uninspired and full of errors, quote, is
no proof how those who were inspired quoted.
But here the declaration is absolute. " Thisis
he that was spoken of by the prophet." Matt.
Iii. 3. Did he tell the truth, or did he not ? If
he did, I have the argument. If he did not, all
confidence is destroyed in the inspiration of the
New Testament. My friend can take which
horn of the dilemma he pleases.
I am not a little surprised that my friend
persists in his demand for more explicit declara
tions. Surely I have furnished the most specific
texts. ' But he assumes to re-punctuate, and even
to add to the original where he deems it neces
sary' to destroy the force of my quotations from
the Seriptures. And this is done on the strength
of human authorities. Now I have not relied
on these, but have quoted the Word of God. I

could quote authorities — a thousand to his one.
For the common sentiment of Christendom is
with me. If- 1 could quote One text more ex
plicit than !any yet given, he would doubtless try
to explain it 'away. For this is a peculiarity of
this ' school of critics. In illustration of this I
will quote the. declaration of one of his own de
nomination, Rev.' Theodore Parker. He says
on this point.
¦' If the Athanasian Creed, and the thirty-
nine articles of the English Church, and the
Pope's bull, Unigenius, could be. found in a
Greek manuscript, and be proved to be the work
of an inspired apostle, no doubt Unitarianism '
would, in good faith, explain all three, and deny
that they taught, the doctrine of the Trinity, or
the fall of man." Discourse on Religion, p. 357-
At this point I will close my rejoinder, and
now introduce to notice the vision of Isaiah.
"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the Lord sittting upon a throne, high and
lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 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 I, Wo is me ! for I
am undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
lips : 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 I said, Here am I ; send me.
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear
ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye in
deed, 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
heart, and convert, and be healed." Isa. vi. 1,
3, 5, 8, 9, 10.
Now let us turn to the following text :
¦' But though he had done so many miracles
before them, yet they believed not on him :
That the saying of Esaias the prophet might
be fulfilled, which , he spake, Lord, who hath
believed bur report ? and to whom hath the
arm of the Lord been revealed ? Therefore
they could not believe, because . that Esaias
said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their heart, that they should not see
with their eyes, nor understand with -'their
heart, and be converted, and I sho'nldheal them.

32

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory not believed ? and how shall they believe in him
and spake of him." John xii. 37-41. , of whom they have not heard ? and how shall
Isaiah says he saw the King, the Jehovah ofjthey hear without a preacher?','
hosts. John says he saw Christ's glory, and i , 1 Cor. i. 2: "Unto the Church of God
spake of him. Therefore Christ was the Jeho- which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified,
vah of the prophet. ,. 'in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all
Again it is said in Isa. xl. 3 : " The voice j that in every place call upon the name of Jesus
of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare Christ our Lord, both theirs and purs."

ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God."
Matt. iii. 3 : " For this is he that was spo
ken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The.
voice, of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths
straight." ,,
This text was before quoted to prove that
Christ is called God. lt is now quoted to
prove that he is called Jehovah.
Isaiah viii. 13-15 : Sanctify the Lord 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
for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Is
rael ; for a gin and for a snare to the inhabi
tants of Jerusalem. And many among them
shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and |be
taken." 1 Peter ii. 7,8: " Unto you therefore which
believe, he is precious : but unto them, which
be disobedient, the stone which the builders
disallowed, the same is made the head, of the
corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock
of offence, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient : whereunto also they
were appointed."
The Lord of hosts is a stone . of stumbling
and a rock of offence. But Christ was that
stone of stumbling. Therefore Christ is. the
Lord of hosts, named by the prophet.
" And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be de
livered : for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and
in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Joel
ii. 32.
Acts ii. 21 : And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
shall be saved."
Rom. x. 13. 14 : " For whosoever shall call
upon the name of the Lord shall besaved, How
then shall they call on him in whom they have

The Jehovah of the prophet J oel, is made to
be Christ our Lord of the New Testament, by
three distinct applications of this prophecy.
Mai. iii. 1 '¦: " Behold, I will send my mes
senger, and he shall prepare the way before
me : and the Lord, whom1 ye seek, shall sud
denly come to his temple, even the messenger
of the covenant, whom ye delight in : behold,
he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.'''
This, text treats of John and Christ as is.
seen by the following texts.1 ¦
Matt. xi. 10 : " For this is he of whom it is
written. Behold, I send my. messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee. Verily I sayiunto you, among theni' that
are born of women there hath not risen a gi*eat- '
er than John the Baptist."
Mark, i. 2- 3 : " As it is written in the pro
phets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy;
face which shall prepare thy way .before thee.
The ypicp of one cry ing i n t the iwilderness, pre
pare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
srraight. . . '
Luke, vi.,26. 27: "But what went ye out. for
to see ? A prophet ? Yea, I say unto you,; and
much more thai! a prophet. This is he of whom
it is written, Behold I send my messenger be
fore thy face, which shall prepare thy way be
fore thee." , .,¦
I will now go back to the Hebrew text.
Mai. iii. 1. " Behold, I will send my messen
ger, and he shall prepare the way before me t.
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly,
come to his temple, even the messenger of thp
covenant, whom ye delight in : behold, he-shall
come, saith the Lord of hosts."
1. The speaker in this text is the Lord of
hosts— Jehovah of hosts.
2. This speaker, sent John to prepare his
own way for his own coming, which was to
follow. 5. But it was Christ, whose way John pre
pared and who followed him.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

33

The conclusion is certain that Christ was
the Jehovah of hosts of the Prophet Malachi.
A few texts from the New Testament will
close this branch of the argument.
" The Son of man is Lord of, the Sabbath
day." Matt. xii. 8.
Tbe Sabbath was a positive institution, de
pendent upon the positive law of God, found
in the fourth commandment of the Deca
logue. Exo. xx.
None but the law giver could be Lord or
ruler of the Sabbath, affecting its observance.
The God of the Old Testament, says over
and over again, " my sabbaths." " Verily, my
Sabbaths ye shall keep." Exo. xxxi. 13.
But Christ virtually calls them his. If he
is Lord of the Sabbath day it is his.
None could be the Lord of the ^abbath,
but the source or fountain of the law which
gave existence to the Sabbath. But Christ
declares himself to be the Lord of, the Sab
bath. Therefore he must be the source or
fountain of the law.
" The word which God sent unto the chil
dren of , Israel, preaching peace by Jesus
Christ ; he is Lord of all :" Acts. x. 36.
Lord of all, can mean no subordinate lord.
" The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the
second man is the Lord from heaven." Acts.
x. 47..
The second man is without dispute no other-
than Christ.
Christ is therefore here called the Lord
FROM HEAVEN.
S' These shall make war with , the Lamb, and
the Lamb shall overcome them : for he is Lord
Tof lords, and Kings of kings : and they that
are with him are called, and chosen, and faith
ful." Rev, xvii.14.
Here the Lord is called " Lord of Lords
and King of Kings.',' By •• the Lord." no
other being can be referred to but Christ.
Therefore Christ is " the Lord of Lords and
king of kings.
" And he was clothed with a vesture dipped
in blood : and his name i3 called The word of
God. (The Logos of our discnssion.) And
he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, King. of kings, and lord op lords :
Rev. xix. 13, 16.
In this passage The Logos or " Word of

God" is introduced to us " with a vesture dip
ped in blood." The Word is declared to be the
King of Kings and Lord of Lords. ' '
MB. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
Before I proceed to consider some passages
of Scripture that my brother has adduced, I
will notice his remarks about quotations that I
brought in from Mr. Everett's work. Now I
did not quote them as authority. My only pur
pose was to show that it was customary among
the Jewish writers of the Apostles' times, to
quote whatever was applicable to the subject
on which they wrote, whether it was a predic
tion or not. But besides those cases from the
Rabbis, I did quote several passages from the
New Testament writers, showing plainly enough
that they quoted from the Old Testament in the
same manner, which my brother did not notice.
I did not say that there were no passages that
did distinctly predict the events to which the
writers of the New Testament applied them.
Some undoubtedly do. I mainly aimed to put
my brother on his guard, for he had quoted pas
sages as a fulfilment of prophecy which I do
not think he will insist are such. Now I beg
to be understood on this point. Mr. Lee quoted,
Rev. i. 17 ; xxii. 13. — "I am the first and
the last. I am Alpha and Omega, the begin
ning and the end, the first and the last."
Whether in both these instances, these re
markable words were spoken by Christ, or in
the former by Christ and in the latter by an an
gel; it seems to me that in each case the person
using, this language of himself must have done
it as the agent, or one acting by the authority
of God. Else what are we to do with the
equally remarkable language used in two in
stances by Moses, respecting himself, Deut. xi.
13-15 ; xxix. 2-6.
In both of these passages, Moses used Ian-*
guage which, if it had been used by Christ,
would be stronger in proving his Deity than
any brother Lee has quoted or can quote for
that purpose. It seems to me, that my oppo
nent and other Trinitarians, in their zeal to find
support for their doctrine, have not carefully
enough considered the peculiarly bold, figura
tive, language of the Bible. Such passages as
the one before us, if they prove w,hat they are
adduced to prove, will be found to prove much

34

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

more, and we shall be able, by the same kind i
of evidence, to establish the Deity of several
other persons besides Christ. Ap argument
that proves too much proves nothing.
But I by no means concede that these pas
sages are responsible for the doctrine that is
charged upon them. In' both cases 'the appli
cation of the words " first and last" to our
Lord, is so guarded as to exclude the idea of his
supreme Divinity. In the 1st chapter, 17th
verse, after being described as "the first and
the last," we read that he said, " I am he that
liveth and was dead," which would not have
been said by the impassable, unchangeable God
who alone hath immortality.
Any person who carefully reads the 22d chap
ter, it seems to me, must perceive that the
speaker, in verse 13th, who said, " I am Alpha
and Omega," is the same before whom John, as
he tells us in verse 8th, fell down to worship
him, and who forbade him in these remarkable
words, (verse 9,) " See thou do it not, fori am
a fellow servant with thee, and with thy breth
ren the prophets, and with them who keep1 the
sayings of this book ; worship God."
If, however; my brother on the other side
does not and cannot see this as I do, I will put
him upon the horns of a dilemma, though I
know it will be an uncomfortable position for
so good a logician as he is.
If he ascribes what is said in the 13 th verse
(I am Alpha and Omega,) to Jesus, and not to
the angel, then must he also unavoidably as
cribe to Jesus the passage coming immediately
before or after it, including, of course, the 9th
verse, " Thus saith he unto me, see thou do it
not,' for I am thy fellow servant," &c, for there
certainly is bjrt one agent described by the prO.
noun He, in the whole train of verses, from the
6th to the 16th, who is pointed out clearly by
the repetition of the phrase, " Because' I come
quickly," in verses 7th and 12th. In this case
the' passage, although it speaks of Jesus as Al
pha and Omega, yet must be considered as de
nying him the place of Deity and ranking him
among the chosen servants of God.
But if he ascribes all the verses of chapter
22, as far as verse fjie 16th, to the angel, he
cannot justify himself in founding his conclu
sion respecting the Deity of Jesus, upon the
13th verse, " I am Alpha and Omega/' for in

this latter case it can bear no relation to Christ,
but must apply to an inferior angel. '
The next passage introduced by my opponent
was the following : —
Look unto mq, and be ye saved, all the ends
of the earth ;' for I am God and there is none
else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone
out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not
return, That unto me every knee shall bow, and
every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say,
In the Lord have I righteousness and strength :
even to him shall men come ; and all that are
incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the
Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and
shall glory."— Isa. xiv. 22-25.
No one'passage that my b/rother has quoted
in support of his doctrine, did he usher into
your notice, and read to you with so much em
phasis, as this. These walls, you remember, re
sounded to his outcry, "I am God and thereis
none else," as if it were spoken by Christ of
himself. I have no doubt of his sincerity in all
that he said. I am well' aware of the over
weening power of one's education, particularly'
religious education. I presume he supposes
that this passage has reference to1 Christ. He '
says, indeed, that the' language upon its face
concerns Christ. But T assure you I cannot
see the slightest evidence of it, and think that
no one of you can, if you 'will take the trouble
to read the whole chapter for yourselves. Even
the Editors of our Common translation, who are
very eager to find any allusion in the prophe
sies to Christ or the coming of his kingdom',
even they were not keen eyed enough to detect
anything in this chapter relating to the great
Messiah, the hope of Israel, the desire of all
nations. Those Editors, I say, do not'intimate
that there is anything' in this chapter respect
ing the Trinity, or either the second or third
person of the Triune God, or in any way re
specting the coming of Christ. They tell us,
in the heading of the chapter, that in it we
shall find, " God calle:h Cyrus5 for his Church's
sake, (the Jewish Church is here meant,) that
by his omnipotency he challengeth obedience
to the end he ' convinceth the idols of vanity
by his saving power." Yo'ii may readily see
for yourselves that in this, and in the two pre
ceding arid subsequent chapters, the Prophet is'
foretelling, in his most glowing style, the deliv-
:I:!,0 !| ,7r * ¦ ¦

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

35

erance of the Jewish nation, who were all the
Church of God as it was organized under Mo
ses; their deliverance from bandage in Babylon.
The 45th chapter commences, " Thus saith the
Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right
hand I have holden to subdue nations before
him. * - * j will go before thee
and make the crooked places straight. *
* - For Jacob, my servant's sake, and
Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by
thy name. * * * I am the Lord
and there is none else, there is no God beside
me. I girded thee, though thou hast not known
me," &c.
It was Cyrus the great — the founder of the
Persian Empire. He conquered Babylon, and
directed the return of the Hebrews to their na
tive land, from which they had been exiled sev
enty years. This is the great event to which
the whole of this chapter, and several before
and after it, relate. It was attributed by the
prophet to the good Providence of God in rais
ing up such an instrument tp accomplish this
great purpose, and bring back his chosen peo
ple from the midst of the nations whose gods
were idols, and with whom the prophet contrasts
so strikingly the power and wisdom of the only
living and true God.
There is not, as I have found, an intimation
in all Bishop Lowth's Commentary on these
chapters, that any part of them relates to Christ,

There is an expression used in this 45th
chapter, which is twice quoted by St Paul, in
speaking of the submission of all men to the
dominion of Christ, and persons who have not
attended to the manner in which quotations are
made in the New Testament from the Old,
which I exhibited to you last evening, may
have inferred, as my brother Lee has done, that
the chapter in Isaiah, is a prophecy of Christ.
The expression I refer to is in the 23d verse
of this 45th chapter of Isaiah, " that unto me
every knee should bow and every tongue should
swear." In the 14th chapter of Romans, 10th
and 11th verses, " we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ, for it is written, as I
live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow tome,
and every tongue shall confess to God." Now
there is no difficulty, as I have intimated before,
in reconciling this passage with my doctrine of
the inferiority of Christ to God. For though
inferior to the Father, he was and is exalted
above every other being, to be a Lord and a
Saviour. And as he sitteth at the right hand
of God, he too will be the judge of all men.
Or if we suppose that the future judgments of
all men is to take place at a particular time,
and to be conducted by Christ alone in person,
still I believe in that case he will act as the
minister, the anointed servant of God, and do
whatsoever he does in God's name, and then, as
St. Paul tells us, 1st Cor. xv. 24, 28, " he shall

who have discovered here any allusion to Christ,
though it is not improbable there may be many
others of less note, for in two or three instances
in this passage God is called the Saviour ; and
there may be many persons who suppose that
to be a title exclusively belonging to Christ —
and yet a not very attentive reading of our Old
Testament Scriptures, was enough to find oth
ers who were called Saviours.
Joshua, especially, bore this title. His name
at first was Oshea, which signifies a Saviour or
salvation ; but afterwards it. was changed by
Moses to Joshua, which signifies, he shall save,
or, the salvation of Jehovah. It is the same in
meaning as Jesus ; and this servant of Moses,
and great Saviour of the Jews in their early
conflicts with the Canaanites, is twice, in the
New Testament, referred to by the name Jesus
Acts viii. 45 ; Heb. iv. 8,

Dr. Adam Clarke, and Dr. Thomas Scott, are ,. ,, , , „
, , ' , T , _ -himself become subject unto him that put all
•the only orthodox Commentators I know ^tblng^ndar M*; that <^ may be all in all."
The other quotation of this language in
Isaiah, is in Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11 ; and is even
more unfortunate for my brother's side of the
argument. It reads " wherefore God also 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 con
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory , of
God the Father."
Here the being whom my brother would have,
me regard as the self-pxistent and eternal God,.
is said to have been highly exalted ; to have
had his great name given him by God ; and tp
receive the homage of all other beings, "to the
glory of God the Father."
But my brother Lee says, that this passage

36

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

in Isaiah relates to gospel times and gospel jus
tification. As I have already said, I see not
the slighest evidence of any such relation.
Read the chapter and judge for yourselves.
My brother quoted Acts. xiii. 3j3, 9.
" Be it known unto you therefore, men and
brethren, that through this man is preached
unto you the forgiveness of sins : And by him,
all that believe are justified from all things,
from which ye could not be justified by the
law of Moses."
These verses certainly declare a great and
most important truth, a part of the glad ti
dings of great joy. But what these verses
have to "do with Isaiah's announcement pf the
mission of Cyrus to restore the captive Israel
ites to their native land, and his glowing de
scription of that event, 1 am utterly unable to
see.' I have bestowed altogether more time upon
this part of my friends argument than it seems
to me to deserve, not because I feel in the slight
est degree the force of it, but because he laid
so much stress upon it.
I have but eight minutes more, 1 will there
fore not enter upon the consideration of anoth-
passage, which my brother has alleged in sup
port of hiSjdoctrine ; and which I intended to
examine here, but cannot dispose of in so short
a time as remains. Let me, instead, ask your
attention to what he said last evening, in reply
to my argument, against the evidence he alleged
in the names and titles given to Christ, that
similar and some of the same titles had been
given to other and far inferior men. He asser
ted that I had not given the exact meaning of
the names Eli, Eliab, Elijah, Elihu &c, though
as I told him, 1 gave the definitions of those
names which some orthodox commentators have
affixed to them. But let that pass. My friend
did Tnot deny that Ithiel meant " Cod with
me" and Lemuel '' God with theni" just as
much as Immanuel meant " God with us."
Neither did he deny that Elgibbor meant " the
mighty God" — Abiad " the everlasting Fath
er," and Sarshalom, " the Prince of Peace" as-
they are translated in the 9th chapter of Isaiah.
These are enough for jny purpose, though I
believe I could show that the other names were
about as well translated.
If Immanuel in the 7th chapter, and these

high titles in the 9th chapter of Isaiah, were •
prophetically applied to Christ, they were more
certainly in their primary application bestowed
upon some some person or persons born in the
time of the Prophet, and therefore are of no
weight in proving the deity' of Christ.
For this opinion I offer yon Sir, very high
orthodox authorities.
Hugo Grotius; (born 1583 died 1654,) of
whom Dr. Adam Clarke says, " His learning
was very extensive, his erudition profound, and
his moderation on subjects of' controversy
highly praiseworthy. No man possessed a
more extensive and accurate . knowledge of the
Greek and Latin writers, and no man has more
successfully applied them to the illustratiou of
the Sacred writings" — Grotius says on these '
remarkable names — " The name Immanuel de
notes the certain aid of God against the Syrians '
and Israelites, and his preservation of the city* "
in opposition to Sennacherib." And on the
9th chapter, 6 th verge, he says ; " Hezekiah,
who was very unlike his lather Ahaz. This
passage is acknowledged, not only by Chris
tians, but by the Chaldean interpreters, to re
late in the same manner, but, in a more excel
lent sense to the Messiah."
On these passages, the very orthodox Dr.
John P. Smith, gives us the following com
ment. " To me, I confess, the most probable
conjecture is, that the person (the Virgin) was
the queen of Ahaz, to whom I further conjee- J
ture that he had then just been married, and
that she was at the time beginning to be with
a son, who proved a blessing to his country,
and a signal honor to the house of David,
namely, the pjous and upright Hezekiah."
Script. Text, Vol. i. p. 358.
Samuel White,. M. A. Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge, England, author of a Com
mentary on Isaiah, in high repute until it was
overshadowed by Lowth's^-says on the 6th
verse of Chap, ix : " That is he (king Heze
kiah) shall reign in the throne of David, as the
metaphor signifies, and as the prophet more
fully explains himself in the following verse,
which cannot be literally true of our Saviour,.
whose kingdom was not of this world, as Da
vid's was ; but in a second and sublimer sense,
the expression denotes that pOwer which God

DISCUSSIO.V OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

37

devolved on his Son, of governing his spiritual
kingdom — the Church."
Now Sir, if these titles were given first to
Hezekiah or some other man, I contend that
the bestowmeht of them upon Jesus Christ is
no proof that he was God.
MU. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.
1 shall continue the direct line of argument
already introduced to notice. Whatever may
have been said by Mr. May in reply to my for
mer arguments, I shall reply to hereafter. And
it has now beeu so long since the quotations
criticised by him were introduced, that a brief
rejoinder would not be appreciated. And I
have not now sufficient time to go over them at
length. I now introduce my second direct argument
in proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. -
,11. The attributes which can belong to none
but the only living and true God, are all ceded
to Christ.
1-Bternity is ascribed to God, and so it is as
cribed to Christ.
•' But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratab, 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 from of old, from everlasting." Micah. v. 2.
This text is applied to Christ.
1 When Herod the king had heard these
things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with
him. And when he had gathered all the chief
priests and scribes of the people together, he
demanded of them where Christ should be born.
And they said ,unto him, In Bethlehem of Ju
dea : for thus it is .written by the prophet. And
thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judea,.art not
the least among the princes of Judea ; for out
of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule
my people Israel." Matt. ii. 3-6.
I will next call your attention to the follow.
ing: " I said, 0 my God, take me not away in the
midst of my days : thy years are throughout
all generations. Of old hast thoulaid tiie foun
dation of the earth ; and the heavens are the
work of thy hands: They shall perish, but
thou shalt endure ; yea, all of them shall wax
old like a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou
•change them, and they shall be changed : But
thou art the same, andthy years, shall have no
endi" Ps. cii. 24-27. , i

Now this language, is applied to Christ. Sec
Heb. i. 8-12.
' But unto the Son he1 saith, Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of right
eousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom : And,
Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foun
dation of the earth.; and' the heavens are the
works of thy hands: They shall perish, but
thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as
doth a garment ; And as u, vesture shalt thou
fold them up, .ind they shall be changed : but
thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
I next adduce in testimony to be takon( in
connection with the former, this passage :
" Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in
all generations. Before the mountains were
brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world, even from everlasting to
everlasting, thou, art God." Ps. lxx.xx.
He who formed the earth and the world is
God " from everlasting to everlasting.''
Christ formed the earth and the world ; there
fore Christ is God from 'everlasting to everlast
ing. Again. Look at this declaration.
" God said unto MoSes, I am that I am."
Exo. iii. 14. And we are informed that Jesus
answered ajid said :
" Before Abraham was I am.1' John viii. 58.
Here the Saviour uses the very language that
expreseg the awful name of the True God, as he
is distinguished from all that are called Gods.
Who can doubt for one moment that the Saviour
had his eye on the very declaration of Jehovah.
and- used it to identify himself with God, as one
and the same being.
Yet afeain it is written Jehovah says, " I am
the first, and I am the last ; and besides me
there is no God." Isa. xliv. (i. But Christ de
clares himself to be the first and the last.-
" Arid he-laid his right hand upon me, saying
unto me, Fear not ; I am the first and the last :
I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and behold,
I am alive for evermore. Amen : and have the
keys of hell and of death."
Christ's eternity) is most clearly and undeni
ably proved by the :fact that he created all
things., '. 1
Here I anticipate an argument, grounded
upon the fact ffliat Christ' did create all things,
which shall thereafter be elaborated.
His eternity is the only point now in ques
tion,, wlpch is proved by the fact that he crea
ted all things.

38

MSCUSSIOX OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINlTV.

All things were made by him ; aud without
him was not any thing made that was made.
For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invis
ible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities,, or powers : all things were crea
ted by him, and for him ; And he is before all
things, and by him all things consist." John i.
3, 16, 17.
He who created all things, must have existed
before any thing was created.
He who existed before any thing was created
must have always existed.
But Jesus Christ did create all things and he
existed before any thing was created, therefore
Jesus Christ is eternal.
2. Omnipotence is one of the essential and in
communicable attributes of Jehovah ; and" this
is asscribed to Christ. We have the same proof
that Christ is omnipotent that we have that the
Father is omnipotent.
" For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world arc clearly seen, being
understood bv the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead : so that they
are without excuse." Bom. i. 20.
The eternal power and Godhead are seen by j
the things that are made.
But all things were made by Christ.
Therefore the works of Christ are a develope-
ment of his eternal power and Godhead.
" In him dwelleth all the fulness of the God1-
head bodily." Col. ii. 9.
All the fulness of the Godhead must embrace
omnipotence. If the Godhead embraces the attribute of
Omnipotence and all the fulness of the Godhead
dwelleth in Christ then must Christ be omnipo
tent. ¦* But Jesus answered them, My Father work
eth hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews
sought the more to kill him, because he not
only had broken the sabbath, but said also that
God was his Father, making himself equal with
God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The &va, can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father
do : for what things soever he doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise." John v. 17-19.
This text proves the omnipotence of Christ in
two ways. ,m
1. It asserts his equality with the Father.
The Jews so understood him, and he confirmed
them.

2. It asserts that Christ does just what the
Father does.
If God over performed an act which nothing-
less than omnipotence could perform, then, as
Christ performs the same acts, he must be om
nipotent. Christ clearly asserts himself to be the Almigh
ty. " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and
the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Rev. i. 8.
And it has been demonstrated in a former ar
gument that Christ is the Alpha and Omega of
this passage.
The very name of Jehovah which I have
shown belongs to Christ, implies his omnipo
tence. It' cannot be protended that Christ possessed
a delegated or communicated omnipotence.
Christ could not receive infinite power as a
communication from the Father unless he first
possessed an infinite capacity to rcceif e and
exercise it.
But an infinite capacity cannot be created.
Creation must be less than the Creator.
God cannot create an equal God.
Omnipotence cannot create omnipotence.
Now as Christ did possess omnipotence : and
as that could not be communicated, he must pos
sess that omnipotence in and of himself: and
therefore Christ must be God.
3. Christ possessed the attribute of Ubiquity
or omnipresence.
In proof of tbis I quote Matt, xviii. 20. " For
where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here is a declaration which is not true if
Christ is not omnipresent.
'• Teaching them to observe all things what
soever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the
world." Matt, xxviii. 20.
Here is a promise which none but an omni
present Jesus can fulfill.
Those ministers who deny the omnipresence
of Christ, cannot pretend that he is with them
in their ministrations.
" He that hath my commandments, andkeep-
eth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that
loveth me shall be loved of my Father ; and I
will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Judas saith unto him (not Iscariot,) Lord, how
is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and

.DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

39

not unto the world ? Jesus answered and said
unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words : and my Father will love him, and we
will come unto him, and make our abode with
him." Let it be understood that these promises are
to every individual Christian in every part of
the world.
" And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the
Son of man, which is in heaven." John iii. 13.
Hero Christ affirmed himself to be in heaven
at the very moment he was on earth. . .
His body was not in heaven, but his divinity
filled all in all.
The manner in which Christ is associated with
Christian worship and Christian experience
proves him to be omnipresent.
'¦' Without me ye can donothing." Jolmxv. 5.
Nothing can then be done where Christ is not.
" I can do all things through Christ which
strengthenethme." Phil. iv. 13.
Can Christ strengthen where he is not ?
" And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient
for thee : for my strength is made perfect in
weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
glory in mine infirmities, that the power of
Christ may rest upon me." 2 Cor. xii. 0.
Christ said, my grace is sufficient for thee.
Christ said, my strength is made perfect in
weakness. The power of Christ rested upon Paul in his
weakness. The power of Christ cannot rest where Christ
is not. Our only access to God is through Christ.
So, as we could not worship, an absent God
neither can wo worship God in the absence of
of Christ.
Christ cannot be in Unitarian assemblies and
and in Unitarian worship according to their
theory. If my brother May haS Christ in his congre
gation, then the Rev. Theodore Parker, whom I
understand my brother May calls a dear Son of
God, cannot have him in his congregation at
Boston. Mr. May, said when did I call him a dear Son,
of God?
Mr. Lee answered I was so informed.
Mr. May said give your authority..
Mr. Lee said, the Rev. Mr. Phinney. of this
city- ..,,:,.
4 Christ possessed the attribute of Omniscience,

"And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said,
Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts ? Matt.
ix. 4.
The marginal reading is, seeing their thoughts.
• All things are delivered unto me of my
Father : and no man knowelh the Son but the
Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal him." Matt. ii. 27.
" As the Father knoweth me, even so know I
the Father : and I lay down my life for the
sheep." John x. 15.
¦¦ All things are delivered to me of my Fath
er : and no man knoweth who the Son is, but
the Father ; and who the Father is, but the Son,
andAe to whom the Son will reveal him.r
Luke x. 2i.
In> these texts Christ asserts that he possesses
the same knowledge of the Father that the
Father does of the Son.
No created being can have the knowledge of
God that God has of his creatures. For who by
searching can find out God ? And therefore as
Christ asserts that he has the same knowledge
of the Father that the Father has of him, he
must be God and rest with the Father in the
unity of the Godhead.
" But Jesus did not commit himself nnto them,
because he knew all men ; And needed not
that any should testify of man : for he knew
what was in man." John ii, 24, 22,
To know all men, and to know what is in-
man, must belong not to any created intelli
gence. " But there are some of you thatbelieve not
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they
were that believed not, and who should betray
him." John vi. 64.
'¦' He saith unto him the third time, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was
grieved because ho said unto him the third time,
Lpvest thou me 1 And he said unto him, Lord,
thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that
I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my
sheep." John xxi. 17.
The declaration is positive, " thou knowest
all things." *
,, "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge." Col. ii. 3.
All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
cannot be, hid in any created being.
" And unto the angel of the church in Thy-
atira write ; These things saith tiie Son of God,
And I will kill her children witih death ; and
all the churches shall know that I am he which

40

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TR1NITV.

searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will give | " who is the image of the invisible God, the first
unto every one of you according to your works." j born of every creature." Romans i. 34 : " his
Rev. ii. 18, 23. " Son Jesus Christ", which was made of the seed of
• To search the hearts and try the reins of men David according to the flesh ; and declared to
is a work which belongs only to the allwise mind." be the Son of God with power, according to the
' I the Lord search the heart, /try the reins ; spirit of holiness by the resurrection "from the

even to give every man according to his ways,
and according to the fruit of his doings"1 Jer.
xvii. 10.
It can hardly be doubted that Christ referred
to the words of the prophet.
5. Christ is declared to possess the attribute of
immutability. This follows from all that has been proved,
but 1 will add a few texts on this point.
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid
the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens
are the works of thy hands : They shall perish,
but thou remaiaest ; and they all shall wax old
as doth a garment ; And as a vesture shalt thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed : but
thbu art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
Heb. i. 10-12.
This declares the immutability of Christ iu
words. " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day
und for over." Heb. xiii. 8.
This is a positive declaration.
And hath made us kings and priests' unto God
and his Father ; to him be glory and dominion
for ever and ever." Amen. Rev. i. fi.
With these remarks I close my second direct
argument in favor of th'e Divinity of Jesus
Christ.

; MB. MAY'S SKCOKD SPEECH.
' it is extremely unfortunate for my friend's
argument that, notwithstanding his formidable
array of texts from the Old Testament and the
New, — numerous and explicit enough
which he thinks prove beyond a question, that
Christ was not a created, but a ielf-existent,
eternally existent being, possessed of all the
' attributes of the Deity ; it is extremely ufortn-
nate for him, I say, that we have the most ex
press declarations of Christ and his apostles, on
every poiiit, exactly to the contrary.
That he had not an eternal, self-existehcfe,
' hear what Christ himself saith : John' v. 26, 27,
'• as the Father hath life in himself, so hath jje
given to his Son to have life in himself; and
hath givefi' him authprity to executejudgment
also, because he is the Son of Man." Gal. iv. 4:.
" when the fulnesV of time was , come, God sent
forth his son,.made of a woman." Cpllos.'i. 15 :

dead." Rev. iii. 14: "these things saith the
Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the .be
ginning of the creation of God." 2 Cor. xiii.
4 : " Though be was crucified through weakness,
yet ho liveth by the power of God,"
Omnipotence. Jesus distinctly declares, that
he was not in possession of this attribute. His
powers mighty as they were, were all given to
him ; and he who gave must have been greater
than he who received them. Matt, xxviii. 18'.
" All power is given to me by my Father,"
John v. 19, " The Son can do nothing of him
self;" and again, verso 30th, ',' I can of inine
own self do nothing." John xvii. 2,,;' As thou
has given him (the Son) power over all flesh,
that he should give eternal life to .as many as
thou hast given him." Matt. xx. 23 : Said Jesus
" To set on my right hand and on my left is not
mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared of my Father." John xiv.
28 : " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because
I said I go to my Father ; for my. Father is
greater than I." Acts x. 38 : " God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth' with the Holy Ghost and '
with power."
Omniscience. Brother Lee quoted a number
of passages to show that this divine attribute
belonged to Christ. Now an omniscient being
needs not to be instructed. But hear what our
Saviour saith on this point. John vi. 16 : " My
doctrine is not mine, but his that sent mo ;"
and John xiv. 24; "The word which ye hear is
not mine, but the Father's wljo sent me." And
again, viii. 28: "As my Father hath taught
me. I speak these things." And even more
strongly, xii. 49 : "I have not spoken of myself
but the Father who sent me. ho gave me com
mandment, what I should say and what I should
speak. Whatever I speak, therefore, even as
the Father said unto me, so I speak." However
geeat his knowledge was, and I, am not here to
deny, that, of divine things, it was greater than
the knowledge of any other man, yet you see
Jesus declares, it was all imparted to him, and
imparted knowledge must always be less than
omniscience. Accordingly, we find. Matt. xxiv.
36, and Mark xiii. 23.J Y/ben asked concerning a
certain future event, Jesus answered, "Of that
day and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not

DISCUSSION 'OF I'HE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

41

even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but
theFsther," or " my Father only."
Infinite goo.dness. This also Jesus disclaim
ed.' He seems to me to have been perfectly
good. I can see no fault in him. He fills my
highest conception of the perfect man. But his
ideal of goodness was doubtless far higher than
mine. He saw a perfection more entire than
his own ; and when one called him ¦' good mas
ter," Jesus answered, "Why callest thou me
good? there is none good but one, that is God."
Now, Mr. Chairman, what can my brother say
to all this testimony, against the claims he has
just Bet up far our beloved master ? I am such
a heretic, that in opposition to all the churches
in Christendom, if all agreed with my brother
Lee on this point, I should say, the plain decla
rations of Jesus himself outweigh all your texts
and arguments. Nay more, I must say, that.
even if I should see as my friend undoubtedly
does, that prophets and apostles concurred to
make Jesus in all respects equal with God, and
these declarations from his own lips remained
as they are, I should be' eompelled to believe,
that Jesus was correct, and all the rest mista
ken. All the passages to which we have been list
ening, so earnestly urged'upon us by our friend,
as a proof that Christ is God — the Sou is the
Father — two are one, seem to me so fully dis
posed of by our Saviour's own testimony to the
contrary, that I will now turn to another part
of his argument of last evening.
The proposition, which is the subject of this
discussion, requires me to believe that, " In the
unity of the Godhead there are three persons,
of one substance, power, and eternity." This
doctrine is more objectionably stated in the
creeds of the Presbyterian and Episcopal church
es, and yet it must be believed, or at least as
sented to, (assent being often mistaken for be
lief,) as a condition of admission to the fellow
ship of those churches. For, notwithstanding
what the 5th article of my brother Lee's creed,
and the 1st chapter of the Presbyterian Confes
sion of Faith, and the 6th article of the creed
of the Episcopal Church — notwithstanding what
these may say of their deference to the Bible
as the ultimate rule of their faith, no man, how
ever earnest may be his declaration of faith in
the Bible, however diligently and prayerfully
he may have studied it— nay, though he may
draw out the several articles of his faith in the
very words of that sacred Volume — no man

those churches, certainly not to the ministry in
those churches, except he be willing to declare
his belief that the Bible teaches what is set forth
in their several creeds, and that, too, notwith-
stending my brother Lee has told you and me
that " those creeds are stated in language which
has become obsolete ; and no Trinitarian can be
found, who, if he were called upon to state his
views, would state them in the exact language
of either of those creeds." Now this seems to
me eminently unfair, that I, or any other man
or woman, should be required so far to bow to
the authority of any church on earth, even my
brother Lee's, (which, because of its generous -
espousal of the cause of the enslaved, I like
much better than the others,) as to accept its
statement of religious truths, rather than the
statements that I find iu the Bible. Nay, worse,
that I should be required to accepi statements
which those churches themselves consider out of
date, old fashioned, " obsolete," that I should
be required to clothe my ideas of the doctrine*
of the Gospel, in their old garments, which they
are almost ready to cast away.
This, I aver, is to put their obsolete creeds
above the Bible, and to wrap up the minds o
men, so far as they can do it, in the grave-clothes
of the Past. I protest against it, and shall nev
er cease to urge my protest, until it shall seem
to me unreasonable.
Yet last evening, in answer to my reasonable
demand for some explicit statement of this doc1
trine of the Trinity, in the very words of the
Great Teacher, who came from God "to bear
witness to the truth," or at least in the words
of some of his Apostles — a demand which I
urged as all the more imperative, because the
doctrine of three persons in one God is so ex
ceedingly incongruous and apparently contra
dictory to the divine unity ; I say, Mr. Presi
dent, when I urged this reasonable demand last
evening, how did my brother treat it ? You re
member, he told you and me, that the unity of
God was as great a mystery as the Trinity, that
the nature of Deity was incomprehensible by us,
that his very existence was and is a profound
mystery to beings such as we are ; nay, more,
he said, that our own existence and nature are
also very mysterious. I acknowledge, of course,
the truth of all he said. No sane man would
contradict him. But he did not blunt the point
of my demand, which is just as bright and sharp
as it was before, and shall be driven home with
the same vigor. His remarks may nave be-

will he admitted to the feilowsaip of any of 'clouded his own vision of what I urged; but
i

*2

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

they did not obscure my sight in the leaBt.
Through all the mist he attempted to throw
around this matter, I clearly saw the great re
vealed truth that " God is one," revealed to
Moses and by him and the Prophets proclaimed
to the world, in opposition to the Trinities of
Egypt and India, and all other forms of Polyr
theism, I clearly saw the unity of God, re-affirm
ed and solemnly declared by Jesus Christ in the
words of Moses, " Hear 0 Israel : The Lord our
God is one Lord," and reiterated by himself and
his Apostles at various times and in diverse
manners, especially by the Apostle Paul, in that
singularly explicit passage, which I hold up con
tinually before the eyes of my brother here, and
all believers in his doctrine of three persons in
one God, I mean the 1st Cor. viii. 4-6, " There
is none 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)
to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
ate all things, and we in him, and one Lord, Je.
bus Christ, by whom are all things and we by
him." I say, sir, through all the mist his re
marks were adapted to raise about the point at
issue between us, (not that he . intended to ob
scure the truth,) through all that mist I saw
clearly as ever, and see it now, the great reveal
ed truth, that the incomprehensible "God is
one," and that he is good. And I object to my
brother's doctrine, not so much because is is a
mystery, as because it is an obvious contradic
tion. It seems to me to declare nothing less
than that there' are three Gods— or certainly
that " God is three." The Father who begot,
the Son who was begotten, and the Holy Ghost
who conceived the Son, that is, was the mother
of the Sou, And yet the creeds, of which this
proposition before us is the fouundation, tell me
that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son —
the molher from her offspring. Now I solemn
ly affirm, that so this doctrine does appear to
me, such seems to my view to be the meaning of
the language of the churches— objectionable,
not so much because it states what is mysteri
ous, as because it declares what seems to me a
palpable contradiction of the great central
truth of revealed religion — that " God is one "
I am aware, Mr. President, that " in all de
partments of human inquiry we find mvstery,
something hidden from us, and beyond our
present reach, and it would be strange if reli
gion were an exception to the general rule. It
is not. "All the subjects of which it treats are
by' their nature beyond our perfect comprehen

sion. We may learn something of them, enough
for present guidance, and comfort and encour
agement, and that is all. God, Eternity, Im
mortality, Redemption, Accountability, Judg-,
ment — what infinite verities do these words
convey, yet how completely are we overwhelm
ed in their contemplation ! There is not one of
them that we can perfectly explain." Our own
souls, as my brother said last evening, are an
unfathomable mystery to us ; how then can we
expect to find out to perfection the natures of^
God and of Christ ? I have no such expectation,
I make no such demand. I go to the study of
the Bible with reverential feelings, trusting that
I shall find enough for my salvation ; not ex
pecting to know all things. But what is dis
tinctly- revealed I do expect to know — what is
revealed can be no longer a mystery. It is a
mystery to me, how all this vegetable world that
now lies so dead about us is to be revived, and
clothed with the verdure, and bring forth the
fruits of the new year. But the revelation of
the glorious fact, that it will be so' restored, has
been made to me more than fifty times, and I
believe the fact, and so am undismayed by this
seeming death. The fact is revealed to me. I
know it, I am sure of it. The how all this
beautiful and wonderful change shall come over
the vegetable world, is still unrevealed— is still
a mystery. I know nothing certainly about it.,
I have some opinions, and will pursue my re
searches further into the hidden truth as I may
have opportunity. But I shall never find it put
to perfection. The fact, however, is enough
for all practical purposes, and that is no mys
tery. If a philosopher should toll me that the
influences of light and heat, upon certain prop
erties in the soil, produced the effect, I should
believe, though it would leave the process still
a mystery. But if he should tell me that the
influences of light and heat, under the same cir
cumstances, were destructive to vegetable life,
I should demur, because the latter statement is
contradictory to the former.
Mystery and contradiction you see, Mr. Chair
man, are very different things. The union be
tween God and Christ is a subject beyond our
perfect comprehension— it is therefore a myste
ry ; but as Christ has declared that he could
" do nothing of himself." and he " spake not of
himself," but only " as the Father gave him
commandment," that " all power was given to
him," I cannot help thinking, that those who as
sert he was equal with the Father, and independ
ent ill his authority, are in error. This seems

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTEINE Otf THE TRINITY.

45

to contradict his plain assertions respectin-g him
self. So when Christ asserts, that he did not
know of a future event — the day of judgment —
(Mark xiii. 32.) the assertion of my brother Lee,
that he was nevertheless omniscient, is evident
ly a denial of what he said. The limits of
Christ's knowledge I cannot define, but he plain
ly, asserted that some limits do exist, whioh was
a distinct denial of omniscience.
Now again, in regard to the proposition we
are discussing, Moses and the Prophets, Christ
and his Apostles, teach and reiterate in various
ways the great truth that God is one. The pro
position of my brother Lee declares that he is
three. Here, then, is not so much a mystery as
a contradiction. And it is the contradiction I
object to, more than the mystery. There may
be a great sublime truth in a mystery, but there
can be no truth in a contradiction. Still the
Wesleyan Church, and all other self-styled or
thodox churches, hold up this contradiction to
be believed, and will account no man a Chris
tian, who does not at least pVofess to believe
what seems to me to contradict the plainest de
clarations of the Bible. I offer them my faith
respecting God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, ex
pressed precisely in the language used by Christ
and his Apostles. But they reject that, and in
sist upon their creeds. I reply, show me the
doctrine of your creed expressed in the words
of Christ or his Apostles, just as I am to receive
it, and I will assent to it as true, and do my
best to believe it. So I have said again and
again. So said that holy and learned man, Dr.
Watts, the author of the Psalm3 and Hymns
that are used in most of our churches. I read
you, last evening, an extract from his most
touching address to the Deity on this very point.
In it he alleges, that, if this doctrine of the
Trinity be true, it is nowhere stated in the Bible
bo precisely, that he knows how to receive it,
and there is much else there which seems utter
ly irreconcileable with such a doctrine. I read
that touching appeal to show you. sir, that oth
er and more enlightened, and every way better
men than I am, find the same difficulty with my
self, and turning, as I do, to the Bible, ask to
have the doctrine of the Trinity shown to them
stated there as it is to be believed.
Brother Lee met that solemn appeal from Dr.
Watts, with the slighting remark, that the Dr.
was not much of a theologian— that he was a
poet rather than a Biblical scholar— more than
intimating that poets were not apt to know much
about Divinity. Brother Lee forgot himself in

that hasty remark.- He forgot that Moses (if he
were, as many belie ve him to have been, the au
thor of the book of Job,) was one it the suto-
limest poets that ever lived : that David, with
all his glaring faults of character, was a great
poet, and yet, if he wrote the Psalms must have
been a great theologian, too ; and that the
Prophets, one and all of them, clothed most of
their sublime doctrines and glowing anticipa
tions in poetry !
Mr. Lee — Ah ! they were inspired by God.
Mr. May — And are not all true poets inspired?
But this is aside from our subject. To Dr.
Watts' and to my own most reasonable demand
for at least one distinct statement of the doc
trine of the Trinity from the Bible. All that
my brother Lee has hitherto done, and all that
he will be able to do, if we continue our dis
cussion until the close of the year, will be to
bring forward from the Scriptures divine titles,
that were bestowed vpon Christ very much as
they were by the Hebrews, upon some of their
prophets, princes, and Judges ; ascriptions of
power, wisdom, goodness to Christ, that would
seem to be attributable only to God. But, in
most instances, the context of such passages
show at a glance, that all such ascriptions of
divine attributes and divine offices to Christ are
made in subordination to his Father and our
Father — his God and our God.
FOURTH EVENING— MARCH 7.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH.
Ill resuming the discussion after several days
intermission, I wish to indicate my line of pol
icy for time to come. I am satisfied that pub
lic sentiment requires us disputants to confine
ourselves to the question in issue, and not to
leave it to discuss other matters.
As I have the affirmative, and have the case
to make out, it is absolutely required of me to
spread my arguments before those who choose
to hear, whether they are immediately replied
to or not.
I cannot control Mr. May in regard to his
time and manner of replying. I would not, M
I could. They are rightfully his own ; subject
to the judgment of the people who come to hear
us. Now, as he has not seen fit to reply to my
arguments in the consecutive order in which I
have introduced them, but has offered replies to
some portions of them, and other portions not
noticed, so that, some of my earliest argument!
remains unnoticed, while some of the latter

44

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

ones have been attempted to be replied to-
breaking up the chain of my argument, so that
I cannot defend them in the order in which I
have advanced them ; I feel myself driven to a
course, which I have no doubt will increase the
interest of the discussion.
I shall leave my rejoinders, or, what you
may call my replies to Mr. May, until the con
clusion of my direct arguments ; and then, re
ply, by defending my arguments .against his at
tacks upon them, in the same chain like order
inwhich I advance them. I shall only correct
some errors in matter of fact,- make some brief
explanations, or, announce what will be the
ground of my reply on a given point, and then
press on with my direct argument to its close.
A few points in matters past require a notice
before I take up my line of argument.
The creed question has been forced upon this
discussion by Mr. May. In his- last address he
made this distinct point which he pressed with
great earnestness. That the doctrine of the
Trinity being placed in the creed, none can
join the church who do not believe it.
This is a misapprehension of the question in
discussion. The question is not, is it right
to make creeds ; but is the doctrine of the
Trinity true. There are those who will main
tain that it is not proper to write it as part of
a creed, even if they believe it be true. The
question is not, is it right to exclude a person
from the church, because he does not believe in
the doctrine of the Trinity, but is that doctrine
true. Mr. May battled against the exclusion of
persons from the church, by creeds as though
that were the question. Does he not know bet
ter , or does he do it to divert attention from
the real issue 1 \
Another point which is foreign to the ques
tion, is, his labored defence of the poets, as
theologians. The only point he made here,
is his reference to the poetry of inspired men,
as Moses and David, to prove that uninspired
poets are likely to be good theologians. Mo
ses and David &c. This second attempt which
he has made during this discussion, to lay unin
spired authors by the side of the writers Of the
Scriptures, as of equal importance and author
ity, will not fail to leave its impressions on
your minds, in regard to his views of the in
spiration of the Scriptures.
The first case was his reference to the man
ner in which Rabbies quote from the Old Tes
tament in proof of the sense in which the wri
ters of the New Testament quote,

This second attempt is more significant, if
possible, for when I suggested that Moses and
David were- inspired by God, he replied in de
fence of his favorite Dr. Watts,; " Arc not all
poets inspired?"
Mr. May here said, " All true poets" was my
remark. Mr. Lee. Very well. All true poets let it be.
Thus did he place Watts and all true poets
by the side of Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew
Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul.
But his own argument overwhelms him.
Most of the poets have been Trinitarians, and
Dr. Watts enjoyed all his poetic inspiration
while a Trinitarian, and then after the, Muses
had departed from him, in his old age, he be
came a Unitarian.
".All true poets are inspired"; says Mr. May.
Listen then to the glorious effusions of, the
insDiration of Dr. Watts.
" Glory to God the Trinity,
Whose name has mysteries unknown ;
In essence One, in person Three ;
A social nature, yet alone."
" To praise the Father, and the Son,
And Spirit all divine,
The One in Three, and the Three in One,
Let saints and angels join"
" To God the Fpiher, God the Son,
And God the Spirit, Three in One,
Be honor, praise and glory given, •
By all on earth, und all in heaven.'' (
" Honor to the Almighty Three,
And everlasting One ;
All glory to the Father be,
The Spirit, and the Son.'"
To our eternal God,
The Father, and the Sou,
And Spirit, all divine,
Three mysteries in one,
Salvation, power, By all on earth,
And praise be given, And all in heaven."
I will now notice one of his arguments which
really belongs to the question.
I argued that Christ possessed all the attrib
utes by which God is distinguished. To this h»
pretended to reply. But I answer'
1. That reply was but partial. I made five
distinct attributes, and he replied in regard to
only three of them— Eternity, Omnipotence and
Omniscience. I noticed Omnipresence and im •
mutability, the first of which told with mom
power on the theory he advocates than any

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

45

other argument ; these he passed in silence, while
he replied on the ground of infinite goodness,
as though I- had urged the1 sinlessness of Christ,
about which I said not one word (!) This may
appear strange, but it will be explained in a
moment. 2. This reply, as far as it went, was based
upon a false principle of reasoning. It did no
more than to array one class of texts against
another. No attempt was made to examine my
arguments, nor to examine the texts I quoted
to show that they did not mean what I supposed
them to mean. But other texts were quoted
which he supposed asserted something else.
This tends merely to array the Bible against
itself, and to destroy confidence in its inspir
ation. To illustrate, I quoted, " Lord, thou
knowest all things." " As the Father knoweth
me, even so know I the Father ;" and he quotes
in reply, " Of that day and hour knoweth no
man, no not the angels in heaven, nor the son,
but my Father only." Now he gains nothing
by this, as I will show you. *
(1.) If both texts are true, he gains nothing,
for then it follows that he knows all things,
and that he has the same knowledge of the in
comprehensible Father, that the Father has of
him, which implies all that I contend for, and,
my argument remains untouched, since all that,
I contend for is consistent with his texts.
(2.) If both text are not true, his texts are
as likely to be false as mine, and of course he
gains nothing in the argument. In attempting
to destroy the credibility of my witness, there
is an equal doubt thrown over his own.
(3.) If he claims a victory on the ground
that his texts are true and mine are not, which
is the only ground upon which he can claim
the argument, he reaps his victory over the
ruin of the Bible, which he appears about [as
anxious to overthrow as he does the Trinity.
(4.) While his success depends upon making.
it appear that a large portion of the Bible does
not mean what it says, my success depends upon
my being able to harmonize all these texts, and
to save the whole Bible— Of which he does not
seem to be very choice.
This I trust I shall do in due time.
But let me show you the weakness of this
method of argumentation.
He quoted in opposition to my views of
Christ's power, his words to his disciples,
''Greater works than these shall ye do." Now,
this proves that the apostles ; had more power
than Christ, or it does not prove how much, or

how little power he had ; in which case it does
not meet my argument. He must then admit
that he has proved Christ inferior to the apos
tles, or admit that he has not met my argument.
But the main point is this ; he quotes—" greater
than these shall ye do." Now suppose I adopt
his method of reply, and quote Christ's words,
" without me ye can do nothing." Is any thing
gained by thus opposing text to text. Certain
ly not, it is a false method of arguing.
3. His re^ly assumes that to prove that Christ
was man, is to prove that he is not God. The
theological system of which the Trinity is a
part, contends that Christ was both God and
man ; and I will proceed to this point in due
time. Christ is presented in the Scriptures in
a three fold point of light. As God, as man,
and as God and man united in one Christ.
Again, he is seen in a three fold position cor
responding to the former. In the light of the
glory which he had with the Father before the
world was ; then in the light of his humility
and suffering; and then in the light of his exal
tation to the throne after his resurrection as the
humanity participating in the glory and author
ity of the throne, as a reward of its redeeming
sufferings. Keep these distinctions in view, and all those
otherwise apparently contradictory texts will
be harmonized. And it will be observed, — it is
my effort to make the Scriptures harmonize,
but his course is to array one class of texts
against another. I submit, that it is a danger
ous work. Those who embrace a system, the
defence of which is a constant work of arraying
Bible against Bible, cannot fail, however imper
ceptibly, to weaken their own faith in the in
spiration of the Scriptures. Whether those
who have adopted such a theory, do or do not,
already exhibit less confidence 'in the inspira
tion of the Scriptures, I will leave others to de
termine by the light of common observation.
The texts which he has quoted in reply to me
on the attributes of Christ, are absolutely es
sential to my theory ; they are the very texts
which I shall quote to prove the humanity of
Christ. He is thus urging against me, that
upon which I rely for support. ' I affirm that
Christ is both God and man, and he replies that
he is not God, because he is man. Is this fair
argumentation? This matter we will settle
hereafter. 4. I have one more point of light in which to
consider his reply on the attributes of Christ.
My rejoinder what remains of it, is contained

46

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTKINE OF THE TRINITY.

in a single text of Scripture, which you may
find in 2 Kings vi. 5. It reads thus, " Alas
master, for it was borrowed." It was read from
a printed tract, or argument, Entitled, " Our
Lord Jesus Christ ; By William Elliott Jr." It
does not contain any notice of the argument
concerning the Omnipresence and immutability
of Christ, but did contain a notice of his good
ness about which I said nothing ; and that is the
probable reason why Mr. May's reply was of the
same partial character.
I do not bring this as an objection to Mr.
May's course, he had a perfect right so to do,
and I do not and will not complain. I only
claim that it as my right to have the audience
know with whom I debate. My friend is wel
come to bring whom he pleases, living or dead,
only let it be known with whom I am engaged
in controversy and I will be content.
One point more— He talked about placing me
upon the horns of a dilemma about the concep
tion of Christ by the Holy Ghost, but I must
confess, he left so much darkness about the sub
ject that I have not been able to find either
horn of his dilemma to get upon it, and will
claim his indulgence while I ask an explanation
of his views in relation to the origin and nature
of Jesus Christ.
1. Had Jesus, the Son of Mary, a human fath
er, or was his conception wholly miraculous,
being accomplished by the power of the Holy
Ghost. This was said after turning toward Mr. May,
who replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ was
the Son of Joseph and Mary."
2. Was the elemental nature of Christ entire
and complete human nature, and no more than
perfect human nature ?
Mr. May said, "I believe that he was a per
fect nan."
3. Did Christ possess conscious existence be
fore he was born of Mary, or did he commenca
his existence with her ?
Mr. May said, " Touching that matter I am
in doubt. I am not clear whether, or not all-
men existed prior to this present life. I am
however inclined to the Humanitarian idea of
the nature of Christ — that he was only a man."
Mr. Lee then remarked. I have still one more
question for my friend to answer if he pleases.
4. What is the Holy Ghost ot which, the an
gel said to Joseph, in reference to Mary's pros-
pective'Son ; " that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost?" The question is what
ia that Holy Ghost ?

Mr. May replied ; " I believe that it was the
spirit of God."
I have now said all I deem it necessary to,
until I close my direct arguments, which I now
resume. III. The works which none but God can do
were performed by Christ.
1. Creation was performed by Christ.
This has been involved in proving other
points, but shall now be made the point of dis
cussion. I make it distinctly here, because it is very
essential to the chain of argument I have pro
posed to furnish in favor of the Deity of Christ.
" All things were made by him and without
him was not any thing made that was made.'
John i. 3.
There is an explicit text, which my friend has
so often insisted upon my giving him, and such
explicit texts he shall have to the end of the dis
cussion. Mr. May said, "an explicit text in favor of
the doctrine of the Trinity I asked.
Mr. Lee said, If an expliciftext cannot prove
one thing it cannot prove another. If he , will
not receive an explicit text in favor of a por
tion of the argument which is essential to the
theory, he will not accept one in favor of the
entire theory— nor can he reasonably demand
it. But I hold him to his contract now and
shall hold him there to the end of the discussion.
" He was in the world and the world was
made by him." Verse io.
" In whom we have redemption through his
blood even the forgiveness of sins ; Who is the
image of the invisible God, the first born of
every creature : For by him were all things
created, that are inheaven, and that are inearth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all
things were created by him, and for him : And
he is before all things, and by him all things
consist :" . Col. i. 14 15.
Great stress war laid upon the first clause of
this text. But this can mean nothing to the
purpose of my friend, unless it means the first
created of every creature.
This cannot be however because : —
1. According to my theory, his divine nature
was never created.
2. According to the theory of my friend, he
was not the first created. Adam was created
tour thousand years before he was. Abraham
was created about two thousand years before
Christ.

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OP TOE TRINITY.

41

3. The expression, " first born of every crea
ture" has reference to rank and not age orpre-
existence. Mr. May said — " Very well so I think."
" For whom he did foreknow, he also did pre
destinate to be conformed to the image of his
Son, that he might be the first-born among
many brethren." Rom. viii. 29.
First-born, here means the chief or head of
all the redeemed and saved. So in verse 18,
following the ones quoted above.
" And he is the head of the body, the church ;
who is the beginning, the first-born from the
dead ; that in all things he might have the pre
eminence." MR. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
Mr. chairman, I cannot show how inapplica
ble the arguments of my brother Lee are, in his
review of my reply, without going over my ar
guments entire, and I prefer to leave the matter
for the -present as it now stands. What I at
tempted to show was, that the Saviour, by his
own language, disclaimed all such attributes as
my brother Lee attached to him by the quota
tions he applied to him. He aimed to lessen the
impression made by the words of the Saviour,
which I introduced by telling you it was read
from a printed pamphlet. And so it was. For
there the texts were to my hand, and I read
them, making such running comments as I
thought proper. I have these words of Christ.
and gave them to you to weigh against the in
ferences my opponent drew from the passages
he quoted and employed to make out his argu
ments. There were many things in Mr. Lee's remarks
that are not worthy of reply — all that about po
etry, for instance. I am willing you should
judge whether Dr. Watts had lost either his in
spiration or his piety, before becoming a Unita
rian. His words are before you. They shall

I am sorry not to go on in reply to the line of
argument directly. But my brother Lee has
laid the necessity upon me by his course in this
discussion. Before I proceed to examine the arguments
which my brother Lee has offered this evening,
I must devote some time to certain things that
he said when we were last here. One of them,
at least, is wholly irrelevant, and you must hold
my opponent responsible for its introduction-
Rather abruptly, quite unnecessarily, and it
seemed to me, somewhat roguishly, my brother
brought me up against what he seemed to think

a theological stump, that I cpuld neither get
over nor around.
In order, sir, that Mr. Lee and the audience
may know that I have a little learning on this
point, I will give it first in the Greek language.
It was " Theta epsilon omicron delta omicron ro
eta, Pi alpha ro kappa epsilon ro," which being
done into plain English, is neither more nor less
than Theodore Parker, the great bug-bear of
the American Church. Mr. Lee held him up to
you as the model Unitarian, and the most illus
trious theologian in our denomination.
Mr. Lee — My friend is mistaken. Ldid not
hold Mr. Parker up as a model Unitarian, much
less as a great theologian. I could not so belie
my idea of a theologian. " You misrepresent
me." Mr. May— What did you say, then ?
Mr. Lee — I said distinguished Unitarian,
Mr. May — You said distinguished theologian.
Mr. Lee — Oh, no ! You misunderstood me.
Mr. May — I am sure you did.
Mr. Lee— If I said so I Will take it all back,
for I will not stultify my own common sense by
say ing or persisting in saying anything like that.
Mr. May — I certainly understood friend Lee
as commending Mr. Parker as a prominent mem
ber of the Unitarian denomination, and distin
guished as an expounder of Unitarianism.
Whatever may be his opinion of him, Mr. Par
ker is a very distinguished theologian, and a
man, perhaps, of more varied and extensive
learning than any other man in our country.
He believes, on some points, as Unitarians do,
but on several other very important points he
has departed widely from the faith which they
deem essential. He has been repudiated and
denounced by all the Unitarian ministers of
Boston and the vicinity. It is not their fault,
that he often has the largest congregation that
assembles to hear any Protestant preacher in
these United States, not excepting the Rev.
Henry Ward Beecher, his only rival in this re
spect. The Boston Association worked quite an
ingenious traverse to get him out of their body,
and the American Unitarian. Association have
run the risk of almost setting up a creed, in or
der so to define their position that it could, not
possibly be confounded with his. I shall pre
sent my brother Lee with a copy of the declara
tion of their faith, that he may never again
make so great a mistake as to identify Mr. Par
ker with the Unitarians. It is as unfair as it
would be to class Dr. Bushnell or Dr. Edward
Beecher, with the Princeton theologians. Why,

*

48

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

sir, since 1845, 1 know of but three Unitarian,
ministers in the country, besides myself, who
have preached in Mr. Parker's' pulpit, or invit
ed him to preach in their pulpits. On us four,
therefore, and no more, let the condemnation
rest of having given the hand of fellowship to
Theodore Parker. The Unitarians, as a body,
I am sure have done enough, and more than
enough, to exonerate themselves from this grave
charge. For myself, sir, I am ready, here or
anywhere else, to avow my respect and love for
that great heresiarch, notwithstanding that I
differ widely from him in theological belief.
And I «hall be happy, here or anywhere else, to
give my reasons for the regard in which I hold
him — reasons which I am sure my brother Lee
will appreciate and honor, if no one else in this
assembly does.
And for what purpose, sir, did my opponent
introduce Theodore Parker the other evening ?
It was, that he might tell us, on the high author
ity of that gentleman, that the Unitarians have
the art of explaining away whatsoever they find
in the Bible, that contradicts their own reason.
If, sir, this be a reproach, and if it really attach
es to the Unitarians, it lies against, all other
Protestant denominations, just as much as
against us. In fact, sir, the whole body Protes
tant set us a glaring example in this direction
and the diverse sects into which that body has
got divided have only followed that example,
Where is there to be found, in all the Bible,
a more explicit, or so emphatic a declarati'on of
any doctrine, as of the great Roman Catholic
doctrine of Transubstantiation. I will turn,
sir, tp the 6th chapter of John, and read to you
from the 48 to the 56th verse, inclusive.
" I am that bread of life. Your fathers did
eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This
is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am
the living bread which came down from heaven,
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever : and the bread that I will give is my flesh
which I will give for the life of the world. The
Jew's therefore strove among themselves, say
ing, How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily,, verily, I. say
nnto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the
last day. Eor my flesh is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh,
»id drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I
In him.

Then turn to Matt. xxvi. 26, and read, that at
the last supper with his disciples, Jesus " took
bread and blessed it, and brake it and gave, ft
to the disciples, and said,, Take, eat, t his is my
body." In like manner, " he topk the cup, and
gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, thip
is my blood."
Now, sir, my friend on the other side has. not
produced, and he cannot produce from the Bi
ble one passage in which his. doctrine of the
Trinity is so plainly, so emphatically declared
as the doctrine of Transubstantiation is declar
ed in the passages I have just read, and yet the
whole Protestant world rejects this Popish doc
trine, not because it lacks proof from holy writ,
(for it were impossible to desire language that
should state any doctrine more clearly, and em
phatically,) but because the doctrine itself con
tradicts reason — nay, in a violent absurdity.
But before Him, who knows the sincerity of nvy
words, I aver that the Roman Catholic.doctrine,
which would have us believe that at the sacra
ment of the Lordte Supper, the bread and wine,
by some mysterious, miraculous change, be
comes the body and blood, pf Jesus does not
seem to me so violently, aye, so fearfully absurd
as the doctrine of the Trinity, because I know
that the body and blood of a man are composed
of the same chemical elements that are to be
found in bread and wine. But my brother Leo
asks me to believe, that in God there are three
persons, and yet but one person ; that is to say,
as the language means to my understanding,
three Gods and yet but one God. Nay, more,
in his creed, of which this is the basis, he calls
upon me to believe that the same being was
both infinite and finite in his attributes, having
all power, and yet being incapable' of himself
of doing anything omniscient : knowing all
things, and yet ignorant of some things : the
holiest one, and yet not good in comparison
with another being, to whom'he referred ; inca
pable of suffering, and yet sweating blood in his
agony ; nay, more, this marvellous doctrine (so
far as I can understand the meaning of the, lan
guage in which it stands in all the creeds of the
orthodox churches,) requires me to. believe that
the Creator, preserver, constant supporter, of
the universe, incarnated himself in the womb
of a virgin, became a man, dwelt among men,
received their adoration as Jehovah, then exgir-
ed on the cross, and laid parts of three days in
the tomb. This doctrine, so self-contradiGtpry,
,so incomprehensible, my brother Lee, and the
other orthodox ministers require me lo believe,

DISCUSSION OF THF. DOCTRINE OF THE, TRINITY

49

upon evidence far less explicit than that whichthen published the discourse containing

the Catholic Church offers for its doctrine of
Transubstantiation, but which, nevertheless,
they and the whole Protestant world reject, be
cause it is absurd, and they explain the passag
es on which it rests to mean something else.
Then, sir, there is the doctrine of Baptism ;
what plain example have we, throughout the
New Testament, of any instance of Baptism be
ing administered to infants, or in any other
mode than one which required the recipient to
go down into the water ? And yet, sir, more
than half the orthodox Protestant world have
rejected that scriptural doctrine, explaining
away the texts on which it rests, and the time
was when the Baptists were hated and persecu
ted worse- than the Unitarians now are. But,
bolder yet ; the only Sabbath instituted in the
Bible; was the day of rest on the Seventh day.
Not a syllable is to be found in the New Testa
ment, requiring or authorizing the change to
the first day of the week, and yet the whole
Christian world have dared to make that change,
excepting a very small remnant, who still ob
serve the seventh day.
I might, sir, if there were time, adduce quite
a number more of instances, in which the Pro
testant world, in the exercise of the right of
private judgment, have set at nought the obvi
ous meaning of passages in the Bible, and ex
plained them away, because that meaning was
contradictory to reason. Sir, they who live in
such a glass house as the whole Protestant
Church is, should not throw stones at those of
us who find ourselves impelled, in the exercise
of our spiritual liberty, to put up a simpler the
ological fabric than that which was reared by
Calvin, or the Westminster Divines, or the
founder of the English Church, upon the foun^
dation which Athenasius or St. Augustine laid.
For the same stone they hurl at us may be
thrown upon them by the Catholic Church, and
grind them to powder. There is no consistent
stopping place, Mr. chairman, between the Ro
man Catholic Church, which assumes to teach
the people all they need to know, from a source
higher than the Bible, and the position, which
we Unitarians take, that every individual should
be urged to go to Jesus and: learn of him, and
left to be fully persuaded,, in his own mind, of
any doctrine . he is called upon to receive. My
good friend, General Granger, who. has denoun
ced me sp flippantly as an infidel, and his pas
tor, the Rev. Mr. Ashly, who has held me up
from his pulpit, to the dread of his people, and

misrepresentations of my principles and, doc
trines, I say, sir, these gentlemen must go (as.a
considerable number of Episcopalians in Eng
land have gone,) back into the bo'som of. the
Roman Catholic Church, or else continue to live,
as they now do, in a glass house with windows
broken to pieces by the recoil of the stones they
have thrown at me. I say once more, we Pro
testants, of every name, must go back into the
lap of mother church, and there shut our eyes
and open our mouths, and swallow what she
may give us to make us wise, or else, sir, like
men in understanding, wc must open our own
eyes, look after God in nature and revelation,
that we may find him and the eternal verities^ :
those everlasting principles of impartial right
eousness and love on which the pillars of God!s
moral government rest, and on which the pres
ent and eternal welfare of every rational and
moral being depends.
I am sorry that I have been drawn away so
long from the precise topic we are discussing,
but I have said no more than Mr. Lee's quota
tion from Mr. Parker required that I should say.
Let us now return, sir, to the' arguments
which Mr. Lee offered here last Thursday even
ing. After he had made some replies to what , I
had said the evening before, he resumed tie
quotation of passages from the Bible, in sup
port of the proposition, that in " unity of the
Godhead there are three persons, of one sub
stance, power, and eternity." All that he had
said, hitherto, had been intanded only to proye
the Deity of Christ. And thus did he attempt,
still further, tp establish this part of his, propo
sition. In Joel i. 32, we read, " it shall come to pass,
that whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be delivered { for in Mount Zion and
in Jerusalem shall deliverance," &c.
In Acts i., Peter declared the occurrences on
the day of Pentecost, to be a fulfilment of the
prophecy in Joel : and particularly the 21st
verse said, "it shall come to pass that .whoso
ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall.be
saved." ThiB seemed to my brother to be proof posi
tive, that the same person is indicated in both
places under the name of " the Lord," and that
that person was Jesus Christ. But, if my friend
had only read to you a few of the verses, that
follow the 21st verse of this 1st chapter of Acts,
you would have seen that JeBus could not have
been considered by Peter as " the Lord*" in. the

50

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OV THE TRINITY.

sense of Jehovah, for he speaks of him as' "a
man approved of God among you by miracles
and wonders and signs, which God did by him,"
as having "been crucified and slain," and as
one whom " God hath raised up," and as being
" by the right hand of God exalted."
Nor would my brother have strengthened the
argument he endeavored to hold up, by this
chain of texts, if he had read the context of the
one that he adduced from Rom. x. 13, 14, for in
the 9th verse of that same chapter he would
have read, "if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved." How then can he ask me
to believe that a being who died, who was rais
ed from the dead, and exalted to the right hand
of God, was himself that very same eternal, un
changeable, impassible Jehovah who raised Je
sus from the dead. He may ask me if he will,
but I cannot gratify him so much as to yield my
convictions to evidence that is so easily dissi
pated. Malachi iii.I, "Behold I will send my mes
senger, and he shall prepare the way before me,
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple, even the messenger of the
covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold he shall
come,- saith the Lord of hosts."
If there is any reliance to be placed upon the
rules of grammar, Mr. chairman, we need not
look beY ond this text itself, to see that there is no
evidence here of the doctrine it was adduced to
prove. Nothing <*m be plainer in a compound
sentence, than that two persons are spoken of
in this verse by the name of " the Lord"— one
the Lord, even the messenger of the covenant.
and the other the Lord of Hosts. I need only
to read it to you again. It is unnecessary, there
fore, to go with my brother into the examina
tion of the texts he quoted from Matt. xi. 10,
11, Mark i. 2, 3, for I have no dispute with him
as to what is there asserted. I believe Jesus
came in the name of the Lord, and I know he
waB often called Lord ; but that proves nothing
but what we have seen and said a handred times,
that the titles of God are often given to his
messengers and prophets.
ExoduB xxxi. 13, " Speak thou also unto the
children of Israel, saying, Verily, my Sabbaths
ye shall keep ; for it is a sign between me and
you throughout your generations ; that ye may
know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you."
. Matt. xii. 8, " For the Son of man is Lord,
even of the Sabbath day."

The argument of my brother, based on these
texts taken in connection, was that, as JesuB,tbe
Son of man, is Lord of the Sabbath day, there
fore he must be identically the same being who
instituted the Sabbath and commanded its ob
servance. Undoubtedly, among the powers given to Je
sus by God, was " the power to establish a sys
tem of religion under which the Sabbath would
be changed from a day of physical rest to one
of spiritual awakening. He could, therefore,
grant a freedom to his disciples unknown to the
scrupulous Pharisees."
In Mark i. 27, Jesus has put this matter in the
clearest light. " The Sabbath was made for
man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the
Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day."
Here we have a plain intimation of the reason
why authority was given him to dispense with
some of the restrictions imposed by the Mosaic
law. But if my friend's reasoning will hold good
to prove Christ the original founder of the Sab
bath, because authority over it was given to him,
then shall we be able, in the same way, to prove
that other men are God. Let me give you only
one out of many illustrations, for it does not
seem to me worth while to spend much time up
on an argument like this.
In the 50th Psalm, 7th and 10 verses, we read,
" Hear O my people, and I will speak ; O Israel,
and I will testify against thee ; I am God, even
thy God. * * * 10, Every beast of
the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thou
sand hills." But in Psalm viii. 5, we read, " O
Lord our Lord,'—" thou hast made him (man) '
a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned
him with glory and honor. Thou madest him
to have dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his feet ; all
sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,"
&c. Here we certainly have as explicit an as
surance as can be given, of the transfer of the
dominion of all things, especially over animals,
from God to man ; and yet, who would argue
thence that the beings, God and man, are iden
tical? Acts x. 36 " The word which God sent unto
the children of Israel, preaching peace by Je
sus Christ ; he is Lord of all." Read to the
43d verse.
You see from the context that the person spo
ken of as Lord of all, was an inferior, depend
ent being, to the God of Israel ; that from him
he received that anointing which enabled him

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

51

tp do what he did ; by him he was rjnised from
the dead on the third day, and by him— by God
— he was ordained to be the judge of quick and
dead." This clause, " He is Lord of all," was thrown
in, as numerous Trinitarian writers concede, not
to declare the Deity of Jesus Christ, but to ex-
express still further the reigning thought of the
whole passage : that the Messiah was not the
Messiah of the Jews only, but also of the Gen
tiles. "These parenthetical words," says Dr.
Owen, whose orthodoxy was never doubted.
" are of great weight, and were meant to prove
that what Christ preached to the Jews was equal
ly, applicable to the Gentiles."
Dr. Pyle, a distinguished man in the English
Church about a hundred years ago, expounded
this passage in the same way. And the Rev.
Dr. George Hill, Principal of St. Mary's College,
St. Andrews, commented thus on this passage —
*' That (that Christ is now Lord of all,) was
made manifest by the extraordinary gifts with
which he endowed the first preachers of his re
ligion—gifts sufficient to prove that all power
in heaven and in earth is now given to him ;
but not sufficient to establish with certainty any
conclusion which extends to his state previous
to the time of his receiving that power." (See
Trinitarian Confessions, page 402.)
If what is eaid here in the context, were not
of itself alone sufficient to show the dependence,
the inferiority of Jesus Christ to God, the con
text of the passage quoted by my brother as the
next link of this chain of proof would settle
this point. 1st Cor. xv. 47, " The first man is of
the earth, earthy ; the second man is the
Lord from heaven." Of this Lord from heaven
it is said in the 24th verse of this same chapter,
" then cometh the end, when he shall have deliv
ered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,"
and in the 28th verse, " when all things shall be
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also him
self be subject unto him that put all things un
der him, that God may be all in all."
Bat my brother would draw us by the next
link of his chain, Rom. xvii. 14, to the conclu
sion that the same person now called (as I grant
Jesus often is called,) the Lamb, is indeed the
Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, for bo it
reads. It happens, very unfortunately for my
friend's argument based on this passage, that if
he will turn to Ezekiel xxvi. 7, he will find that
a person no more lamb-like than Nebuchadnez
zar, was once dignified by a similar title : "For
thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will bring

upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon,
a king of kings, from the North, with horses and
with chariots," &c.
A reference to the same passage will reduce,
in like manner, the value of the evidence in sup
port of his doctrine, which Mr. Lee would draw
from Rev. xix. 16, where the same high title,
king of kings, is said to have been on the ves
ture and the thigh of him, who a few verses be
fore had been called the Word of God. No care
ful reader of the Bible, unless too intent upon
proving a favorite doctrine, would rest the truth
of so weighty a proposition as the one w,e arc
discussing, upon the titles that are bestowed
upon distinguished persons. The Hebrews and
the Orientals were very extravagant in this par
ticular. MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.
Mr. Lee said, When I closed my previous re
mark, I had just entered upon the argument
that the works which none but God can do were
performed by Christ. The point under notice
then was, that he created all things. I will now
quote the words of Him whom my friend will
admit is Jehovah. The words of God the Father
speaking of the Son. He says :
" Of old hast thou laid the foundation of. the
earth ; and the heavens are the work of thy
hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure;
yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment ;
as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they
shall be changed : But thou art the same, and
thy years shall have no end." Ps. cii. 25-27.
Now in Heb. i. 8, Paul quotes the entire pas
sage from the Psalms, and declares that " God
saith it unto the Son," and adds :
" Thou Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the
work of thy hands." Heb. i. 10.
Here it appears that he whom my friend says
was the Son of Joseph and Mary, God declares
laid the foundation of the earth, and with his
hands made the earth and heaven. Now I leave
it with you to decide which is right, my friend
who affirms one thing, or God the Father, in
what is said here of the Son.
2. The work of Providence, or upholding and
sustaining all things, is ascribed to Christ.
'' Upholding all things by the word of his
power." Heb. i. 3.
" By him all things consist." Col. i. 17.
Now I repeat this text. " Upholding all
things by the word of his power." But it has
been said that Jesus told Mb disciples — " Great*
er works shall ye do I" There is a very impor

DISCUSSION pF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

.tant difference however in the manner of doing
his works and those attributed tp his Apostles.
Jesus Christ did his mighty, works in bis own
name. No other person ever did this. When
an apostle performed a miracle he said " Jesus
maketh thee whole." Butif Christ performed
the worklhe said,I say unto thee," as in the
case of the bed-ridden man — " I say unto thee
arise take up thy bed and walk." In his own
name he spoke to the storm tossed wave " Be
still." His providential power and care is seen in
many of the miracles he performed. He silen
ced the winds, and stilled the waves, and broke
the slumbers of death.
To govern and uphold all things he must be
every where, and possess almighty power.
Now how can he uphold all things — how can
all things consistor subsits by him if he is not;
every where ? And if he is every where pres
ent he must be God. Some tell us about the
supremacy of nature's laws. But what are the
laws of nature ? They are simply God in na
ture manifesting himself any where. And if
Jesus Christ is upholding all things, and if by
him all things consist, he must be every where
present in nature, and must be-God. He must
ride upon every zephyr that wafts its fragrant
breath on the mountain and along the plain. —
He it is who gives to the flower its blooming tints
of every hue— He is seen glowing in the radi
ant sun beam — And without, him the hearti
would cease to throb and send the life renewing
current through artery and vein — And in the
absence of his power the universe would be
without law, and every, shining orb would miss
its path and cease to roll along the etherial way ;
for He " upholdeth all things by the word of his
power ; and by him all things consist."
. Now these are explicit texts for my friend.
Night after night successively he has called for
explicit texts. Well : Here they are. Surely
he has them here.
3. He pardoned sinners, which God only can
have a right to do.
" When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the
sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,
But there were certain of the scribes sitting
there, and reasoning in their hearts. Why doth
this man thus speak blasphemies t who can for
give sins but God only? And immediately,
when Jesus percelvediin his spirit that they so
reasoned within themselves, he said unto them,
, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Whether is.it easier to say. to the? sick of the

palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say,
Arise, 'and take up thy bed and walk ? But that
ye may know that the Son of man hath power
on earth to forgive sins."
The Jews asserted that none but God could
forgive sin.
Christ did ; not contradict it, but showed that
he had the power.
When Christ pardoned that sinner, he ascend
ed the throne above the law, and silenced its
voice and hushed its thunder.
IV. The worship, which belongs only to God
is rendered to Christ.
" Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven im
age, or the likeness of any thing that is in hea
ven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth : Thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them : for I the Lord thy God am ajealousGod."
Exo. xx. 3-5.
" Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence,
Satan : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou scrye."
Matt. iv. 10.
These passages are quoted simply to show
that worship is only lawful when offered to God.
Towards all other beings it is forbidden. Now
let us see if Christ may not be worshippedr-and
indeed, whether we are not commanded to wor
ship him.
" Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye per
ish from the way, when his wrath is kindledbut
a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust
in him." Psalm ii. 12.
" Sayiug, Where is he that is born King of the
Jews ? for we have seen his star in the east, and
are come to worship him. And when they were
come into the house, they saw the young child
with Mary his mother, and fell down, and wor
shipped him : and when they had opened their
treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold
and frankincense, and myrrh. Matt. ii. 2, 11,
"And behold: there came a leper and worship
ped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst
make me clean." Matt. viii. 2.
" Then they that were in tho ship came and
worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou .art the
Son of God." Matt. xiv. 33.
Now observe. The Lord did not rebuke them
for worshipping him. And againfthis worship
was proffered to him after they had seen the
wonderful and Godlike power that he exerted
in stilling.the stormy wave.
"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold

DISCUSSION OF THE 'DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

53

Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they
came and held him by the feet, and worshipped
him." Matt, xxviii. 9.
"And when they saw him, they worshipped
him,- but some doubted." Matt, xxviii. 17.
'•Arid it came to pass, while he blessed them,
he was parted from them, and carried up Into
heaven. And they worshipped him, and return
ed to Jerusalem with groat joy." ¦ Luke xxiv
51,52. Here the worshipping disciples were yet in
the presence of the bright cloud on which he
passed away from them to heaven. In full view
of the bursting glories of that vision and filled
with the inspiration of the scene they worship
ped him. And He is a being worthy of the wor
ship of earth and heaven, to whom, with the
Father, all ascriptions of praise maybe equally
awarded. "And I beheld, and 1 heard the voice of many
angels round about thefthrone, and the beasts
and the elders : and the number of them was ten
thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands ; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy
is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and
riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor,
and glory, and blessing. And every creature
which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under
the earth, and such as are in the aea, and all that
are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, honor,
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ev
er." Rev. v. 11-13.
Again, verse 18, '¦ But grow in grace, and in
the knowledge of our Lord and Savour Jesus
Christ. To him be glory, both now and for ev
er. Amen."
"And again, when he "bringeth in the lirst-be-
gotten into the world, he saith, And let all the
angels of God worship him."
Yes, ye seraphs, beings of the upper world,
with your hearts of flame ; ye. too, may wor
ship him, for it is written, " let all thoangelsof
God worship him."
An Riigel absolutely refused to receive wor
ship. "And I John saw these things, and heard them.
And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to
worship before the feet of the angel which sbew-
ed me these things. Then saith he unto me,
See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow-servant,
and of thy brethren the prdphets, and of them
whieh keep the Sayings of this book : worship
God." Rev. xxii. 8, 9.
In an attempted reply to my former argument

on this text; Mr. May assumed that it twas Christ
who refused to be worshipped. This confounds
the person ;of Christ with that of an angel.
But hear what is said in verse 16.
" I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am the root
and the offspring of David, and the bright and
morning star."
I now offer my fifth direct argument. ,
V. Christ claimed and had ascribed to him
absolute equality with the Father.
" But Jesus answered them, My Father work
eth hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews
sought the more to kill him, because he not on
ly had broken the Sabbath, but said also that
God was his Father, making himself equal with
God." Johnv. 17-19.
Now the Jews understood him to claim that
he was equal with God. Jesus knew they so un
derstood him, but he did not deny or disclaim it.
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fath-
i er do : for what things soever he doeth, these
also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father
loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that
himself doeth : and he will shew him greater
works than these, that ye may marvel. For as
the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath com
mitted all judgment unto the Son : That all men
should honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honor-
eth not the Father which hath sent him. For a*
the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself." John v.
17-23, 26.
"Philip saith unto him. Lord shew us the
Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto
bim, Have I been so long time with you, and yet
hast thou not known ma Philip ? He that hath
seen me hath Seen the Father ; and how sayest
thou then, Shew us the Father ? Believest thou
not that I am in the Father, and the Father in
me?" John xiv. 8-10.

"And all mine s^re thine, and thine are mine ;
and I am glorified in God. John xvii. 10.
' But' 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." 1st Cor. viii. 6.
Yon will recollect how my opponent pressed
the argument as unanswerable, that Christ wag
not God, because it1 was only said "by him

54

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

were all things made," instead of " he made all | No mere human or created being could make
things." satisfaction for sin.
Mr. May remarked — No, I only rely on it to

prove that his power was delegated ; that he
was an agent and not the author of creation.
Mr. Lee answered — Where is the difference,
pray, between what you admit and what I state ?
Nor does it make any difference with the argu
ment. But I ask your attention to these prepo
sitions " by," and " with." They are so used as
to place Jesus Christ and God the Father equal
ly in the position of the author and upholder of
all things. It is declared all things are " of"
God, and all things are " by" Christ.
We are in God, and we are by Christ.
The prepositions here used place Christ in
precisely the same relation to all things that
they do the father.
Again, in Phil. ii. 6, " Who, being in the form
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God." " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
God-head bodily." Col. ii,
Now, no created being would dare think of
being equal with God. Yet Jesus Christ thought
it not robbery to be equal with God. It was,
peradventure, for a less ambitious aspiration,
that Satan was doomed to infamy, and fell like
lightning from the battlements of heaven down
deep to hell.
My friend has quoted Greek to ypu -quite flip
pantly. Now, if you will consult any Greek
critic you will find that the word rendered
Godhead is " Theotees." This word properly
signifies Divine nature. So that the fullness of
the Godhead means the fullness of the Divine
nature. And if in Christ the fullness of the Di
vine nature dwelt, surelyi He was equal with
God. I now offer you my last argument on this.part
of the question in discussion.
VI. Christianity, as a saving system, proceeds
upon the assumption that Christ possesses su
preme divinity, power and authority.
The gospel proceeds to offer eternal life to
sinners, upon the assumption that Christ suffer
ed and died as the sinnners' substitute, to make
satisfaction for sin, to be the sinners' propitia
tion, so that sinners may receive pardon through
faith in him, and receive the gift of eternal life,
which they could not have had without such
death. As this pbint is usually denied by Unitarians,
I am bound to prove it unless it be admitted.

There must be something engaged on which
law had no prior claim. Thus the whole gos
pel depends on the divinity as well as humanity
of Christ. Unitarians have felt this difficulty
so forcibly, that they have generally denied the
doctrine of Christ's sacrificial death, as an ex
piation for the sins of men. . This abandoned,
the doctrine of pardon must be also abandoned,
and all the associate doctrines of grace.
On this point I shall sum up briefly. Those
who take away the divinity of Jesus Christ take
away our hope of salvation. If I have any
hope of heaven there is no other ground on
which it rests than that I have laid before you
in these arguments for the Divinity of my Lord.
If that is lost, all is lost. Withont him there is
no salvation ; no pardon ; no rest for the soul ;
no satisfaction for sin ; we have no claim to hea
ven. But Jesus Christ has become a surety for
us. He is the propitiation for our sin. His
name, to a lost world, is above every other
name. There is no other by which we must be
saved. And again I repeat, that if you take
away his divinity we have no Saviour. Yes,
and every humble believer, every trembling
penitent may well exclaim, in accents of grief,
to my brother May and those who agree with.
him, in the language of weeping Mary,. "They.
have takeu away my Lord, and I know not
where ye have laid him."
MR. MAY'S SECOND SPEECH.
Leaving my replies to certain incidental mat
ters, which' Mr. Lee has brought into his last
speech, until I can more properly introduce
them in other connections, I will now follow
him in the examination of the texts he has just
been pressing upon you in support of his maiu
position. He insists that the works which Christ did,
prove him to have been the Almighty. He al
leges that he was the Creator of all things, of
the worlds' and all things on earth and in hea
ven. In support of this he quotes John i. 1-3.
"The Word was God. * * * ^y
things were made by him ; and without him
was not any thing made that was made."
I answer, if the Word here means, as I be
lieve it does, the Wisdom of God, I have no
dispute with Mr. Lee on this point, for I, too,
believe that all things were made by the wis
dom of God. It was by his wisdom that he

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

55

devised, and in wisdom that he executed the
work of creation. In all things his wisdom is
as conspicuous as his power or goodness.
But if " the Word," here means Jesus Christ
then I beg you and this audience to observe,
that the language used would lead naturally to
the inference that the son of God was the agent
of the Creator, that he received from him , the
directions, and was invested by him with the
power to do all that he did. Observe the lan
guage, "All things were made by him ; and
without him was not any thing made that was
made." The same appears in the next text which Mr.
Lee quoted, Heb. i. 2, " God who, at sundry
times and in diverse manners, spake in times
past unto the fathers by the prophets ; hath in
these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom
hp hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds."
Here the language is similar and implies the
same thing, that the Son was the agent of God
in making the worlds, and therefore, of course,
inferior and accountable. In the 9th verse, as
I have shown on a former evening, this inferi
ority is very plainly implied, " therefore God,
even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil
of gladness above thy fellows"
Whether, in the 10th verse, the God who an-
-ointed, or the God who wa3 anointed, i. e. the
supreme, or the subordinate God, be referred to,
I cannot decide for others, but to my mind it is
plain enough that the 10th, 11th and 12th ver
ses are a quotation from Psalms cii. 25, 27,
suggested by the Apostle's allusion to the cre
ation of the world, and is referable to the Su
preme God. Then' in the 13th verse comes a
plain intimation that this* God of Gods hath
shown distinguished favor to the Son, above all
angels, ministers or agents of his will
Mr. Lee next quoted Col. i. 16, 17, " 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 prin
cipalities, or powers ; all things were created
by him and for him."
Here again, sir, the same form ot expression
recurs. "By him were all things created."
Very different in force is this from the style, in
which Moses speaks of the Creator and his
work. *' In the beginning God created the hea

vens and the earth." Now, sir, this is not a
imere hypercriticism upon style. There is a
difference in the meaning, a momentous differ
ence in the meaning of the two statements. It
appears, as I have shown, more plainly in He
brews, i. 2, than here. There it reads, " By
whom he (God) hath made the worlds." The
same is declared even more explicitly, in Ephe-
sians iii. 9, " make all men see what is the fel
lowship of the mystery, which from the begin
ning of the world hath been hid in God, who
created all things by Jesus Christ."
If the Apostle believed and intended to
teach, that the man Christ Jesus was the ori
ginal Creator of all things, of earth and hea
ven, it is very unaccountable that he should
have uniformly used a form of expression which
implies that he might have created all things as
the agent of another. I must therefore believe
that this is the sense in which the Apostle
meant to be understood.
Now, Mr. chairman, that an inferior being
or Aeon, was the agent of the Creator in mak
ing the world and establishing the Jewish econ
omy, was believed by the Gnostics. And the
Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a pre
existent, super-angelic being, who, under God,
was the immediate Creator of all things in the
universe, and that Go'd appointed him tb do all
that needed to be done for the redemption of
mankind. Vou see, therefore, sir, there is no
thing declared in either of these passages which
Mr. Lee may not believe in common with the
Gnostics and Arians.
But, sir, as I do not believe the Apostle in
tended we should understand him to teach that
Jesus Christ was, even as an agent of God, the
Creator of the material universe ; I must at
the risk of being a little tedious, go much more
fully than I have done, or can do to-,night, into
an exposition of his true meaning ; which you
will find to be much more probable, and much
more consistent with all else that is said in the
Scriptures respecting Christ. But it will take
so much time to do this matter justice, that I-
must defer it until our next meeting, and now
turn me to the argument in behalf of the Deity ,
of Jesus drawn from the facts which Mr. Lee
alleges go to show that, he was worshipped. ¦
If my friend will consult the Greek Testa
ment, he will find five words used, in different

56

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRNIE OF THE TRINITY.

places, to express the ideas we attach to the
Imglish wdrd worship. These are, 1, prbskun-
eo ; 2,- liturgeo ; 3, latreuo ; 4, sebomai ;' 5,
proseuchomai. The first of these, " proskuneo," is used to
express that respect which one man may show
another man as his superior, his king, his ruler,
or one on whom he is dependent for some great
favor, which he hopes to receive. In the Sep-
tuagint translation of the Old Testament, and
ih'tfie Greek original of 'the New Testanient,
this word, " proskuneo," is used in the follow
ing passages :
Gen. xxiii. 7, 12, where Abraham- is said to
have bowed down himself to the people of the
land, the children of Heth, from whom he wish
ed to obtain a place to bury Sarah.
The same word is used 1st Ohron. xxix. 20,
where we read that " all the congregation bles
sed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed
down their heads and worshipped|the Lord and
the king."
The same word again is found in Daniel ii.
46, thus : " Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell
upon his face and worshipped Daniel, and com
manded that they should offer an oblation and
sweet odors unto him."
In turning to the New Testament, my friend
will find that it is this word "proskuneo," that
is used wherever there is anything said of the
worship paid to Jesus. Matt. viii. 2, "And
behold there came a leper and worshipped him,
saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me
clean." John ix. 38, the man that had been cured of
blindness said to Jesus, " Lord, I believe'," and
worshipped him.
And in Heb. i. 6, where we read, " let all the
angels of God worship him," i.-e. the first-be
gotten. Now that the word "proskuneo" is not used
in the New Testament in any higher sense than
in the Old, we learn from the following passa
ges in Luke xiv. 10, Jesus had been instructing
his disciples how they should conduct them-
selveis when bidden to a feast, and he adds,
" then shalt thou have worship in the presence
of those who sit at meat with thee."
Matt, xviii. 26, where the servant in the par
able, who owed his Lord ten thousand talents,
" fell down and worshipped him." "

Bo in Acts x. 25, " as Peter was coming in,
Cornelius met him, and fell down tit his feet
and worshipped him."
In Rev. iii. 9, an assurance is given to the
angfel, or minister of the Church of Philadel
phia, that the disobedient members of the
Church shall "worship before thy feet and
know that I have loved thee."
Now, let my opponent, or any other advocate
of the worship Of Jesus, show, if he can.'tn
what single instance either of those other words
used to express the honor due to God alone,' is
applied to Christ, and then he will have at least
some shadow Of evidence for his doctrine, but
at present he has none.
In all the cases I have adduced, the word
" proschuneo" is used. Even after Christ's re
surrection from the dead, (Matt, xxviii. 9th v.)
when " his disciples came and held him by the
feet and worshipped him," and also in the 1 7th
verse, the word that is used is "proschuneo."
Upon this passage Dr. Adam Clarke, (whom
I love to quote, because I su'ppose what he says
will have much weight with my brother,) re
marks as follows :
" This kind of reverence is in daily use among
the Hindoos ; when a disciple meets a public
guide in the streets, he prpstrates himself be
fore him, and, taking the dust from his teach
er's feet, rubs it on his forehead, breast," <fec.
And so, too, Dr. John Pye Smith, a very or
thodox gentleman, says :
" The prostrate position, which denoted the
highest reverence and respect, is manifestly de
scribed, but the expression does not necessarily
import more than the most exalted civil hom
age." He has adduced those ascriptions of honor
and power to Jesus, which occur in the book
of Revelations ; but they do not prove the De
ity of our Saviour, nor authorize the worship
of him as God. Per, to say nothing of the
doubt that is thrown over the authorship and
authority of this hook of Revelations, by Dr.
Adam Clarke, Dr. Lardner, Michaelis, and oth
ers, and the difficulties that beset the interpre
tation of this exceedingly enigmatical book,
there is enough in the book itself to sustain me
in my position against the worship of Christ,
as insisted on by my brother Lee. In this very
book of Revelations, whether autheritic or hot,

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITT.

61

wojgnd Jesus represented as rejecting and dis
avowing all such worship as my friend would
have us pay him. I need only refer you to
chapters 19 and 20. Michaelis, a Trinitarian
commentator of great distinction; says, "The
true and eternal Godhead of Christ is certainly
not taught in the Apocalypse so clearly as in
St. Jphn's gospel, though the author speaks in
enthusiastic language of the greatness of Christ's
ministry, and the glory communicated to his
human nature. At the very beginning of the
book, Christ is placed after the seven spirits,
who stand near the throne of God ; nor is he
ever called God, or the Creator of the world.
throughout the whole work." — Introduction to
New Testament, Vol. IV., pago 538.
My brother has referred us to the conduct of
the leper, one of the nine who were suddenly
healed of that horrible disease, and alone re
turned with a heart overflowing with gratitude
to God, the author, and Jesus as the instrument,
by whom his restoration to health had been ef
fected. Read the whole passage for yourself
Mr. Chairman, and you will see that the con
struction by no means requires, that we should
understand that Jesus is there identified with
God. Surely, if the congregation of Israel
(1 Chron. xxix. 20,) might without idolatry
" bow down their heads and worship the Lord
and king David" at the same time — much more
might this poor Samaritan, whose joy at his
deliverance from the leprosy was unspeakable,
fall down at the feet of Jesus, and bless him as
the agent, while he was giving thanks to God
as the author of his marvellous cure.
Mr. Chairman, as it respects worship, in its
highest religions sense, and the being to whom
alone that is due, Ve have the command of
Jesus himself; Matt. iv. 10. "Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve." Here the word translated " serve,"
is " latreuo," which, whenever it occurs, means
religious worship, and is in no case applied to
Jesus. But his own words are so much to the point
that I refer you to them. In his instruction
to his disciples our Lord says : — '.' In that day
ye shall ask me nothing," but they were assured
that " whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my
name he will give it to you.
Now air, the application which my friend
5

makes of the texts he quotes, seems lo me to
be incomprehensible. He makes the names of
the Bather and the Son to be inlerchangable,
and then quotes some texts as applicable to the
Son, and some of them as applicable to the
Father, which to my apprehension makes con
fusion worse confounded.
Mr. Lee quoted the declaration of the Saviour
to the Jews that " my Father worketh hither
to and I work" &c. John v. 17-30. He said
that the Saviour did not contradict the notion
of the Jews that he had made himself equal
with God. But did he not say " The Son can
do nothing of himself." He declared that all
men should honor the Son as they honor the
Father, and he that honoreth not the Son hon-
oreth not the Father which hath sent him.
Yet note the expression " hathsent him." He
was the " Servant" the Ambassador of the
Father. To honor him in that relation was to
honor the Father that sent him. While to re
fuse to honor him, was to dishonor the Father
whose ambassador he was.
And whatever declarations are found ascri
bing power and attributes divine to Christ,
they are to be understood and explained in the
light of the passage which say that these are
" given" to him by the Father. And I ask
if it is not a gross perversion of the Scriptures
to declare that the relation of the Son to the
Father i3 the same as the relation of the Fath
er to the Son. Do you not see that we should
all be startled at the perversion of the truth,
if one should read " the Son is greater than
the Father," and " the Father said all power i#
given to me by my Son" — and yet Sir, if Mr.
Lee s doctrine be true, I see not why this inter
change might; not be made.
Mr. Lee quoted the passage John xvii. 4,
" And now 0 Father glorify thou me with
thine own self with the glory that I had with
thee before the world was." Bnt he omitted
to quote the 21st verse, where Christ prayed
that all his disciples, and those who should be
lieve on him through their word, might be one
" a3 thou Father art in me and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us." Onr Lord then
proceeds to the close'of the chapter to explain
the relation which he sustained to the Father,
and to declare his [knowledge of the Father,
And in the last verse he uses these remarkable

58'

OISOUSSiON OF THB DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

words, " I have declared unto them thy name
and will declare it, that the love wherewith
thou hast loved me, may be in them and I in
them." This Mr. Chairman is the great Chris
tian doctrine of reconciliation, at-one-ment —
which differs much from the doctrine of Atone
ment, to which my brother has referred. The
one, the atonement, is the reconciliation o? God
toman, by paying price for man's redemption ;
the other, the at-one-ment-is the reconciliation
of man to God by repentance and new obedi
ence. Let me refer you Sir to 2 Peter i. 3, 4,
but more especially to' the 2d chapter of "the
Epistle to Titus — 11 and 14 verses inclusive,
where the Apostle Paul has laid this whole
matter so plainly before us in these very plain
words :
"The grace of God that bringeth salvation
hath appeared to all men, Teaching us, that
denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in
this present world ; Looking for that blessed
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ : Who gave
himself for us, that he might redeem us from
all iniquity, afid purify unto himself a peculiar
people, zealous of good works."
I shall Sir, on a future evening, give my
views more fully of the exceeding importance
of tbe death of Christ, in its relation to the
salvation of man. And shall exhibit our Heav
enly,! Father, in a very different light from that
in which he is.presented to-us, in the creeds of
the prominent orthodox churches of our day.
I shall show him to be like the Father in our
Saviour's, parable of the Prodigal Son, more
willing to hear than i we are to pray — inore wil
ling to forgive our sins ' than we are to seek
forgiveness ; and that he welcomes, as a benig
nant parent, the first symptoms of repentance
in^iis rebellious child, and while he is yet a
great way off meets him with expressions of
encouragement and love. There is nothing in
God or his system of government, that is a bar
rier to ther: return of the sinner, nothing but
thejjrequirement that the repentance shall be
sincere. „ FIKTH BVENING^MARCH 9.
. , ME. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH,.
•The sense of responsibility which I expres-
Befinmy opehinsf address, has in no degree other.

been diminished by the progress of the disc#-
si|on. I have no doubt the developementa of
Tuesday evening last, gave many to see that
the issue involves wider extremes than had
been supposed could be fonnd between the
views of any two professed' ministers of Jesus
Christ in Syracuse.
In the hour of calm, the bosom of the water
is smooth and dear, nor would the untaught
beholder think what might compose the gath
ered sediment beneath. But when the storm-
king rides in his chariot upon' the face of the
waters, and sets the billows to rocking, up
comes hidden contents and' unsightly objects
are seen, which those who were wont to drink
the surface waters, little thought lay beneath
the place where they quaffed.
The doctrine that Christ was the natural
Son of Joseph, which falsifies the express read
ing of the record, with some other strange
¦views, I shall leave for future consideration,
that I may get forward with my direct argu
ment. A few things require attention before
I proceed. It is not my purpose to assail any person or
persons, lay or clerical outside of this discus
sion. And in reference to any personal attacks
that have been made, I take this occasion to
disclaim all responsibility of any such attacks.'
But to proceed.
Mr. May affirmed that no doctrine is more!
clearly and positively stated in the Scriptures '
than the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Whefher it be so or not, does not belong to
this discussion. I do flot so understand the
Scriptures, and hence I hold to the inspiration
of the Scriptures, without believing in transub
stantiation! j But Mr. May believefr that this doctrine is
more clearly taught than any other doctrine, '
and yet he does notbelieve it. The conclusion ¦•*
is- irresistable, that he believes nothing because '
it is taught in' the Scriptures. ' ¦ '¦
I'So on the subject of baptism, he affirms that *
there is no scriptural warrant for infant Bap
tism, or any Baptism but by immersion, and
yet he baptises infants, and otherwise than by '
immersion., ' '-,
Mr. May said you misrepresent me I think! '

said there was no explicit statement for any

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

59

Mr. Lee. Did you say there was explicit
statement for that ?
Mr\ May. I did, but I> baptise otherwise.
Mr. Lee. That answers the point.
The conclusion is that he does not regard
the Scriptures as a standard. He believes
just as the Baptists do, and yet he is not a Bap
tist. But I think otherwise, and differ from, my
baptist brethren, and yet we agree on the doc
trine of the -Trinity. Is it not clear then that
the Trinity is more clearly stated.
So on the subject of the Christian Sabbath,
he denies that there is any Scriptural warrant
for keeping the first day of the week as a Sab
bath, in tbe place of the seventh day Sabbath.
Well here again we differ. But this does not
belong to the argument.
I fthink I have proved in a tract, which I
have written, that we are all bound religously
to observe the first day of the week as a Sab
bath, that the change was made by authority.
As my friend has probably never seen it, I
will present him with a copy, that he may read
it at his leisure.
Mr. Lee here gave a copy into his hands.
The only bearing that this whole matter has,
is to prove that Mr. May does not believe in
the inspiration of the Scriptures, that he does
not bow to them as an authoritative standard,
by which is to be determined what is true and
right in regard to the subjects of which . they
treat. But how does this look ? He pressed me for
explict texts, for one explicit text, with which
he promised to be satisfied ; and now he has
told you that the doctrine of transubstantiation
is declared in a specific text, more so than any
other docrine, and yet he does not believe it;
¦What will specific texts amount to with a man
who declares his disbelief in a doctrine which
he avows is more explicitly affirmed in the
Scriptures than any other doctrine ? And for
what purpose does such an one demand explicit
texts ? Jpdge ye ! ,
The question of the worship of Christ de
mands a passing remark. In reply to me on
- this point, he told you that there are several
words in the Greek, 'whidh are rendered wor-
wprship. Two. of these only come within, the
i"'*

scope of the argument. They are Latreuo, and
Proskuneo. He told you that the word prosHkmo, was
used in those texts which I quoted to prove
that worship was rendered to Christ, but that
Latreno is the word used where worship is de
scribed as rendered to God. This was partly
correct and partly incorrect.
1. It is true that the word Latreuo^ is some
times used to describe worship rendered to Godi
Bnt worship is not the primary sense of the
word. Latreuo is derived from Latris, a ser
vant, slave, or attendant, hence, Latreuo signi
fies to serve, wait upon, attend. But as a sec
ondary meaning it is used to devote Worship;
Mr. May here observed — That is what I
said. Mr. I*ee. It is not what you was understood
to say.
Mr. May. It is what I said precisely.
2. It is not correct that this is the word
used in Matt. iv. 10, to denote worship, as Mr.
May affirmed, the word thence %sed is proskn-
neo. " Then saith Jesus unto him, Get the hence,'
Satan : for it is written, Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou;
serve." In this text proskuneo is rendered worship}
and latreuo is rendered serve. Service is not
always worship, hence where both are named
Prdskuneo is employed to .denote the worship,
and Lutreuo to denote the service, s
3. It is not true that Proskuneo, the word
rendered worship in the texts I quoted, is not
used to denote the the worshipof the truer
God. This word occurs 59 times in the New Tes
tament, as follows :
In 26 texts it is used to express the worship
of the true God. In 15 texts it is used to ex
press worship rendered'to Christ. In 14 texts
it is used to denote worship rendered to false
objects, as devils, idols, dragons, beasts, &c.
In 10 cases out of the 14, where false wor
ship is meanty the word is found in Revelations •'<'
where they are said to have worshipped the'
Dragon, the beast arid his image. This must
be the worship due to God, to make it a crime
and hence, the 'word ' must be used in these
cases to express such worship as God claims.

60

DISCUSSION OP THK DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

f«t-

Tfiefact then- is, out ofwty-nine instances
of the use of the word, in 26 it denotes, the
true worship of the true God, and in 14 it is
used to express a fajsp worship, which consti-
tnes the antithesis,, or counter pf true worship,
This uses up 39 instances of the use of the,
word, in which it is used to express worship
rendered to the true God, or worship which is
due tp God, but is criminally rendered to false
Gods. This leaves but 19 other cases to be disposed
of. In 15 of these remaining cases, the word 'is
nsed to, denote worship rendered to Christ.
This, leaves but 4. cases to be, disposed of.
In two of the remaining four cases, it is
used to denote worship offered to an aDgel
which was refused, as follows :
" And I fell at his feet to worship him. And
he said unto me, See thou, do it not : I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have
the testimony of Jesus : worship God." Rev.
xix. 1Q. ••
This was not Christ but an angel, as he
speaks of Christ in the third person.
It was no doubt the angel mentioned at the
opening of the preceding ehapter.
" And after these things I saw another angel
come down from heaven, having great power ;
and the earth was lightened with his glory."
Rev. xviii. 1.
From the description he may have thought
it was Christ himself. The other case is chap
ter xxii.
" And I John saw these things and heard
them. And when I had heard and seen, I
fell down to worship before the feet of the an
gel which shewed me these things. Then saith
lie unto me, See thou do it not : for I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the proph
ets, and of them which keep the sayings of
this book-: worship God."
In these two cases where worship was of
fered to angels, true worship is intended, as is
proved by the angel's refusal to receive it, and
by his enjoining the worship of God. It can
not be pretended that the angel meant any
thing less than true worship, when he said
worship God.
This leaves bnt the 2 ont of 59 instances of
the use of the word proskuneo, in which it is

nsed to describe worship rendered, or offered to
men. This is Mr. May's defense. He finds the
word used twice with reference to men, ont of
59 instances, in 15 of which it describes wor
ship rendered to Christ, and 26 to God. Bnt
let us look at these two cases.
" And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius
met him, and fell down at his feet, and worship
ped him. But Peter took, him up, saying,
Stand up ; I myself also am a man.".
This Mr. May quoted, but he quoted only
the first part, Pejer'g refusal to receive the
worship, on the ground that he was a man,
shows that Mr, May's application of, the text
was a perversion of the. sense. It proves that
the word expresses a kind of worship not due
to a man, and which a man may not receive.
The only remaining case is Rev. iii. 9. " Be
hold, I will make them of the synagouge of
Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not,
but do lie ; behold, I will make them to come
and worship before thy feet, and to know that
I have loved thee."
This was said to the angel of the Church at
Philadelphia. If it means the true worship of God it pre
dicts their conversion, and declares that they
shall worship not the Church, but God, and
worship God at their feet, that is, in their pres
ence. '
If it means mere prostration, or subjugation,
it is all plain. It is a promise that that church
should triumph over her enemies. In this case
this word is used in its primary sense which is
to prostrate ones self. It is hence nsed to ex
press worship because that was the form usual
ly practiced in the east.
To close this review of my friend's learned
criticism, let me say, that Latreuo, which he
says is the woro" used in Greek to express tho
true worship of God, occurs 21 times in the
New Testament, out of which it is translated
worship only four times, and in the remaining
17 it is translated serve.
The word proskuneo, which he says is not
used to express the worship of God, is found
59 times in the- New Testament, and is trans
lated worship in every single instance, and in-
26 it denotes the worship of God, and in 15,
worship rendered to, Christ. In all other cases

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

61

save one, it denotes worship due to God,whc'i
was tendered to, or Wickedly rendered to other
beings, and in the one remaining case it is
nsed to denote the submission which the ene
mies of the church was to render ^o her, under
the hand and power of God.
How terribly pushed must a cause be to
have occasion to resort to snch criticisms as
the one I have now exposed. You know as
well as I that nothing but desperation would
drive any disputant npon such baseless grounds,
of defense.
I now resume the direct argument in the
affirmative of the main question.
Trinitarians affirm that Christ, the Saviour,
was both God and man, that he possessed ab
solute Divinity and entire humanity, and that
the two natures constitute the one Christ.
This is the only ground upon which the
Scriptures can be reconciled with themselves.
One class of Scriptures affirm that he is God,
from everlasting, eternal," the same yesterday
to-day and forever."
Another class of Scriptures present him as
a child born ; the son Of Mary ; a man, suffer
ing and dying, and rising again. These clas
ses of Scripture cannot both be true of the
same nature, but the one class is true of his
Divine nature, and the other class is true of his
human nature.
I propose at this point to prove the fact of
the Two Natures of Christ. This is the key
to what would otherwise be mystery.
I. That Christ possessed two natures is
proved by a comparison of those two classes
of texts, one of which affirms his Godhead,
and the other of which affirms, his humanity.
The first point, namely, that he possessed a
divine nature, has been proved and the argu
ments need not be repeated. [See Argument
for the underived Divinity of Christ.]
That Christ possessed human nature may be
soon proved. /
This indeed has been admitted by my oppo
nent. And if I was argning merely for the
purpose of convincing my friend, the argument
might rest here upon his admission. But I
am arguing with a view to establish the truth
in the minds of my hearers, and I cannot pass
by any essential point without establishing it
by direct testimony.

1. He was the^Son of Mary.
"She brought forth her first-born Son."
Luke ii. 7.
" There was a marriage in Canaan of Gal
ilee, and the mother of Jesus was there."
John ii. 1.
2. He was the seed of Abraham. As such
he was promised to the world.
" And in thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed ; because thou hast obeyed
my voice." Gen. xxii. 18.
" Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,
as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed
which is Christ." Gal. iii. 16.
If Christ did not possess humanity, he did
not correspond to the person promised.
3. Christ was the Son of David.
" What think ye of Christ ? whose Son ie
he? They say unto him, the Son of David."
Matt. xxii. 42.
" And the multitudes that went before, and
that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the
Son of David ! Blessed is he that cometh in
the name of the Lord ; Hosanna in the high
est 1" Matt. xxi. 9.
" And when Jesus departed thence, two
blind , men followed him, crying, and saying,
Thou Son of David, have .mercy on us." Matt.
ix. 27.
" Concerning his son JeBus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David accord
ing to the flesh ;'' Rom. i. 3.
4. He is declared to be a man.
" For there is one God, and one mediator be
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus ;"
l.Tim. ii. 5.
"For this man was counted worthy of more
glory than Moses, inasmuch .as he who hath
builded the house hath more honor than the
house." Heb. iii. 3.
" But this man, because he continueth ever
hath an unchangeable priesthood." Heb. vii. 24.
" For every high priest is ordained to offer
gifts and sacrifices : wherefore it is of necessity
that this man have somewhat also to offer."
Heb. viii. 3.
" But this man, after he had offered one sac
rifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right
hand of God ;" Heb. x. 12..

62

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,

Here are five texts which call him a
and more might be adduced.
5. Christ exhibited all the usual phenomena
of human nature.
He was born a child, and grew to be a man.
He was hungry and thirsty, and eat and
drank. He grew weary and rested.
He slept and awoke.
He rejoiced, and was sorrowful and wept.
He lived and he died.
The proofs of the two points are now before
as, that he was God, and that he was man.
The only conclusion is that he was God aud
man. This harmonizes the book of Revelation
completely. But if the twofold nature of
Christ be denied, then is the Bible placed at
war with itself,. as indeed it seems to be the
aim of my opponent so to represent it.
MR. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
There are a few incidental matters suggested
by what has just been said which I will dispose
of as briefly as possible. j
Mr. Lee alluded to my attack, last evening,
upon certain individuals. What I said, sir
will be published ; and when those individuals
themselves shall see what I said, and remember
what they have said and published respecting
me and my supposed opinions, I cannot believe
they will deem me severe, or that my remarks
were impertinent to the point I was pressing on
your notice.
In the next place, Mr. Lee took no little
pains to make me appear to you as an enemy
to the Bible. I cannot conceive what ground
he has for such a representation, unless it be,
that my principles and modes of biblical inter
pretation differ from his. They will both be
before this audience in the published report of
this discussion ; and they may judge for them
selves which is the better of the two, when they
have become students of the Scriptures.
Mr. Lee then misrepresented (I am willing to
believe unintentionally,) the use I made of the
doctrines of Transubstantiation, Baptism, and
the Sabbath. I alluded to them, sir, only as
examples of the use the Protestant world has
made of that principle of interpretation which
we are condemned for applying to other sub-

man, teaching of the Bible, on each pf the above-
named doctrines, is in their favory yet, .sir, I
think the general Protestant belief respecting
them is more in accordance with the spirit of
the Bible, and all I ask is to be allowed to ap
ply the same principle to, the interpretation of
the Scriptures:? on other doctrines.
In my friend's remarks upon the subject of
the worship of Christ, he , led you to suppose
that I introduced only two words, "proskuneo"
and " latrueo." But, sir, here is the manu
script from which I read, and here are five
words, which yon will see in the published re
port. Now, I did not ,deny that proskuneo,
which is often used to express civil or personal
respect to a fellow man, is sometimes used when
speaking of the worship of God. Nay, I quo
ted several passages in which xhe word is used
in reference to the worship of God as well as
man. I denied, sir, and I deny again, that: the
words which mean the worship due to God
alone are used, in the Septuagist translation of
the Old Testament, or in the Greek original of
the New, when the worship of Christ is spo
ken of.

We now come, sir, to the exposition I pro
mised last night to give of the passages quoted
by my brother, to prove that Christ was the
Creator of the material universe, passages
which I shall attempt to show mean the new
creation, the regeneration of mankind. I can
hardly expect that my exposition will be at
once accepted by those who have been educa
ted to read these Spriptures differently. Let
me bespeak a careful attention now, and here
after, when it shall appear from the press, a due
examination in the light of the Scriptures them
selves. Mr. Lee argued that Jesus Christ is the Al
mighty God, because he is sa!d to have been
the Creator of all things — the maker of the
world. In support of this he quoted John i.
1-3, " In the beginning was the word, and the
word was with God, and the word was God.
All things were made by him ; and without
him was not any thing made that was made."
Ephesians, iii. 9, "And to make all men see
what is, the fellowship of the mystery, which
from the beginning of the world hath been hid
in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

jects. Though I cannot -'deny that the literal ' Colos, i. 15-18, " Who is the image of the in-

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

63

visible God, the' first-born of every creature :
for by him were all things created, that are in
heaven and that are in earth, visible and invis
ible ; whether they be thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers ; all things were
created by him and for him ; and he is before
all things, and by him all things consist. And
he is the bead of the body— the church : who
is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ;
that in all things he might have the pre-emi
nence. For it pleased the Father that in him
should all fulness dwell."
Hebrews i. 1, 2, and 10-12, " God, who at
sundry times and in diverse manners, spake in
time past 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. * * *
And thou Lord in the beginning hast, laid the
foundation of the earth : and the heavens are
the works of thine hands : They shall perish ;
but thou remainest : and they shall wax old as
doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed : but
thou art the same and thy years fail not."
I immediately replied, in part, to his argp-
ment, as you will remember, by showing that
in neither of these places is it said, that the Son
of God, or Christ, or the Word, created all
things,, or made the world ; but that " by him
God made the world," " by him all things were
created." If I were an Arian I should leave
my reply as it was left, on this point, last Tues
day evening. Please recur to it. But as I do
not believe the writers of the New Testament,
in the above quoted passages, if we except, per
haps, John i. 1, referred to the first — the ma-
:terial creation — but to the new, the moral, the
spiritual creation or re-creation, I shall now
..proceed, sir, to develope what seems to me to
be the Scriptural doctrine upon this point.
1. The Gospel is distinctly foretold by the
.prophets of the Old Testament as a new crea
tion.,, Isaiah lxv. 17, "Behold I create new
heavens and a new earth, and the former shall
BOt be remembered, or come into mind." »
Isaiah lxvi. 22, " For as the new heavens
and the new earth which I will make, shall re
main before me, saitb the Lord, so shall your
seed and your name remain." See also Isaiah
li. 16.

Much other language of the. prophets seems
to imply the same. In the book of Revelation
the church or kingdom of Christ is called the
New Jerusalem. John says, chap. xxi. 1, " I
saw a new heaven and a new earth." 2, " I
John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem,
coming down from God out of heaven." 5th
verse, "And he that sat upon the throne said,
Behold, I make all things new."
The Greek word, ektisthe, rendered created
may, with the same propriety be rendered, were
renewed or re-created.
To increase my confidence that this is the
true meaning of the words I am considering,
the Apostle Paul, who is the best commentator
on his own words, expressly styles the gospel
dispensation a new creation.
Gal. vi. 15, "For in 'Christ Jesus, neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircum-
cisiou, but a new creature," which Dr. Adam
Clarke, and others of the best critics, say
should be rendered " a new creation."
2d Cor. v. 17, " Therefore, if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creation ; old things are
past away, behold all things are become new."
Eph. i. 10 to 22, " For we are his workman
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."
All who are familiar with the New Testament,
know I could quote much more to the same
effect. En arke, trausiated "in the beginning," does
not certainly mean in the commencement of the
work of creation described by Moses in Gene-
sies. In Luke i. 2, and Mark i. 1, the same
phrase in the original and in the translation,
obviously means the commencement of Christ's
life. So in John's Epistles, and in those of the
other Apostles, this phrase is often used in this
sense. It may refer either to the beginning of
the first or of the second creation.
Aionas, translated worlds in Hebrews i. 2 ;
aionon, translated world in Eph. iii. 9, ought
not to be understood of the material world ; be
cause elsewhere the word awn, in the New Tes
tament, whether in the singular or plural, never
signifies the material world . The connection in
which it occurs, in the various instances in
which it is used, shows this. >t;
In one of the texts quoted by Mr. Lee, Heb.
i. 2, a son is declared to be the person by whom
the world's were made. In the 10th 11th and

64

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRNIE OP THE TRINITY.

12th verses of this chapter, the God of this
Son is addressed as the Creator of the heavens
and the earth. And both Jesus and his Apos
tles elsewhere teach that God the Father crea
ted the visible world, and distinguish him as
the Creator, from Jesus Christ. See Acts iv!
24, 27, 30 ; xvii. 24, 28, 31 ; Luke x. 21 ;
Matt, vi.30; xix. 4. These are enough, though
any number might be adduced.
If we interpret aion to mean the material
world, we shall find it will not suit the context
Both the immediately preceding and following
passages, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, gen
erally treat, not of the original creation, but of
the age of the Messiah. The Epistle commen
ces by saying that " God, who at sundry times
and in diverse manners spake to the fathers by
the prophets, hath, in these last days, (or in this
age,) spoken unto us by his Son." And Christ
is declared, in various places, to be the Media
tor of the new covenant and superior to Moses,
which implied that he was not the Mediator of
the old covenant. On the contrary, the Jewish
and Christian Scriptures unite in representing
the Messiah as appointed by God to introduce
and conduct a spiritual kingdom.
John i. 17, "The law was given by Moses;
but 'grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'1
Compare this with Col. i. 12, 23.
From all these considerations, and many
more which need not be mentioned now, I am
led to the conclusion that the word translated
••'worlds'' in Heb. i. 2, and "world" in Eph. iii. 9,
onght to have been translated, age — meaning
the age of the Messiah. This signification is
evidently pointed ont in the first clause of the
verse ; and it corresponds with the succeeding
verses, which particularly point to the gospel
dispensation. It also coincides with the gene
ral subject of the Epistle. I am therefore per
suaded that the true translation would be, " by
whom also he instituted or introduced this age.''
" The first-born' of every creature," is a He-
• brew idiom, or a Jewish form of speaking, of the
use of which we have several instances in the
Old Testament. In one sense it signifies the
same as the only begotten, that is to say the
best beloved, the peculiar favorite, one who is
- preferred to all others. Thus Israel and Eph-
raim are called the first-born of God. Exod. iv,
22, " Thon shalt say unto Pharaoh; thus saith

Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my first-born."
Jeremiah xxxi. 9, " I am a Father to Israel, and
Ephraim is my first-born." In Psalms lxxxix.
27, David has the title of first'born conferred
upon him. " He shall cry unto me, Thou art
my Father, my God, and the- rock of my salva
tion. Also I will make him, my first-born, high
er than the kings of the earth."
But there is a passage still more to my pur
pose. Rom. viii. 29, " for whom he did fore
know he also did predestinate, to be oonformed
to the image of his Son, that- he (his Son) might
be the first-born among many brethren." Here
our Lord is plainly styled the first-born among
many brethren, as being the head or author of
the Christian dispensation. This may help us
to explain the Apostle's words, and, taken in
connection with the acknowledged sense in which
the word first-bom is used in the Old Testa
ment, is sufficient to confirm my interpretation.
Christ is called the first-born of every creature,
not because he was the first being whom God
ever made, but because he was the head, the au
thor of the new creation, the regeneration of the
moral world. I know it is said, Eph. iii. 17,
" that he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.'7 Bnt, if what has already been
said be true, we need not understand this to
mean before all things with respect to time, but
dignity, excellence, holiness, and the favor of
Gqd. He is more excellent than all former
prophets or law-givers ; acts in a higher sphere,
and more exalted capacity than any of them ev
er did. The all things which consist in him, or
are established by him, are obviously the things
of the new creation, which Paul, in a previous
passage, tells us are from old things which are
passed away, having been brought by Christ in
to a reformed or regenerated state.
I am further strengthened in my convictiom
that by the phrase " all things," is not meant the
things of the material world, by the language
which is used in the verse immediately preceding
the 16th, " By him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or principali
ties, or powers."
It seems to me very obvious that by " aU
things," can be meant only such things as need
ed to be, and might be regenerated, and recon
ciled to God.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

65

A similar use of a general term is found in the
next chapter, where it is said of the gospel "that
it was preached to every creature under heaven,"
meaning, of course, only such creatures as were
adapted to receive the gospel, i. e. rational and
moral beings, not the lower orders of creatures, j
In both cases we are required to limit the appli
cation of the language used. Thrones, domini- 1
ons, and principalities, are words designating j

particular things, and therefore of those partic
ular things we must suppose the Apostle to be !
speaking in the text, and not of all things nni- '
versally. What, then, is the import of these
words ? They manifestly denote " those who sit
on thrones," those who exercise dominion. Thus
civil rulers are denominated by the same Apos
tle, Titus iii. 1, " principalities and powers."
Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put on the whole ,
armor of God, and adds, " for we wrestle not .
against flesh and blood, but "against principali
ties and powers, against the ruleis of the dark- j
ness of lbi3 world, against spiritual wickedness
in high placss." Of Christ it is said in another !
Epistle, " having spoiled principalities and pow
ers, he made a show of them, openly triumphing
over them."
And again, the same Apostle declares to the
Romans, " I am persuaded that neither life nor
death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,
shall be able to separate us from the love of
God." These are examples of the use of these
terms in the New Testament. More might be
adduced if it were necessary.
To ascertain what sense to attach to them in
this passage Col. i. 16, 17, we must examine j
the preceding verses. Paul has just spoken of
Christians as delivered from the power of dark- 1
ness and "translated into the kingdom of God's '
dear Son." It is to power, authority and pre
eminence in that kingdom, that the word
thrones probably relate. The creation intend
ed is not the natural creation, bnt a moral spir
itual one — that, effected by the Christian dis
pensation. The whole passage seems to me
designed to declare the supremacy of Christ, in
that kingdom of which he is the founder and
head. However eminent the subjects of his
kingdom, they arc subjects still — " those who
sit on thrones, those who exercise dominion,
those who administer government, and those
who have power" are bound, just as much as

private individuals, to be obedient to Christ,
and they must answer for their disobedience.
Would to God, the rulers of our country, the
members of our national Congress especially,
realized this. They and we must suffer until
they do. For Christ is the first born of the
new creation — to him all things in the Chris
tian world owe their origin, " all were created
through him and for him," and " he is before
all" first in dignity, office and character ; and
by him all consist ; that is, are supported and
kept in being in spiritual life throngh their re
lation to him — as the branches are preserved
and invigorated by the juice of the vine, to use
Christ's own beautiful figure. And he is the
head of the Church — the first born from the
dead ; that in all things he might have the pre
eminence, for it pleased the Father, that in
him should all fullness dwell.
- The same general sentiment is expressed in
the second chapter." " Ye are complete in
him, who is the head of all principality and
power." We find it also in the first chapter to
the Ephesians — " When he raised him from the
dead and set him at his own right hand in the
heavenly places, far above all principality, and
power and might, and dominion, and every
name that is named, not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come, and hath put
all things under bis feet, and gave him to be
head over all things to the chnrch, which is his
body — the fulness of him that filleth all things."
If you ask mo Sir, for further authority for
considering the creation' spoken of in the texts
upon which I have, been commenting — a moral
creation. I will give yon yet more. This very
apostle Paul styles the change effected by
Christianity a new creation. He tells Chris
tians that they are God's workmanship, created
in or throngh Christ Jesus unto good worsks."
Eph. i. 10. A similar nse of language is not
uncommon in the Old Testament. " I create
Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy."
" I have put my words in thy mouth, and have
covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that
I may plant the heavens, and lay the founda
tions of the earth, and say unto' Zion thou art
my people." Drop down ye heavens from
above, and let the skies pour down righteous
ness ; let the earth open, and let them bring
forth salvation, let righteousness spring up to-

66

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

, gether, I the Lord have created it." These
, passages relate you remember, to the restor-
! ation of the Jews to a happier civil and moral
state. I surely do not depart from Scripture
analogy, in the interpretations I have proposed
of the term " create," as applied with signal
propriety to that recovery, which restored
spiritual life and immortal hope to a world dead
in trespasses and sins.
My time is put, else I would give you par
aphrases of the above passages, made in accord
ance with my belief that they relate to the new
creation. I.EE'S SECOND SPEECH.
I shall not attempt to examine the super.
structure of my friend until it is completed.
It will be time enough then for me to adopt,
or attempt to demolish his " new creation.''
Mr. May — I have said all I intend on that.
Mr. Lee — I will now lesume the argument
that I commenced in my former remarks this
evening. And at this point it may be observed
that the argument gains strength at every step.
Like the progress of a river, the argument-
deepens and widens as it flows, by receiving at
every step the tributary strength of smaller
streams. So the previous arguments I have
offered hold their own strength and are in
creased by each successive proposition that I
establish. The next point to be considered is
this. II. The two-fold nature of Christ is proved
by the fact of his pre-existence.
Of course his pre-existence has been proved,
while proving his divine nature, but I will now
prove: the point by another class of texts.
" What and if ye shall see the Son of man
ascend up where he was before ?" John vi. 62,
What does that mean ?
" Before," means before he came into the
world, before his incarnation.
He was then in heaven with the Father.
" I came forth from the Father, and am come
iiito the world , again, I leave the world, andgo
to the Father." John xvi. 28.
This asserts that he existed with the Father
before he came into the world, as plainly as it
teaches that he exists :with the Father now he
has left the world.
" For the bread of God is he which rcometh
down from heaven, and giveth life unto the

world. Then said they unto him, Lord,, ever
more give us this bread. And Jesus said unto
them, I am the bread of life : he that cometh
to me shall never hunger ; and he that believ-
eth on me shall never thirst." John vi. 33-35.
This asserts that he came down from heaven.
" Torn- father Abraham rejoiced to see my
day : and he saw it, and was glad. Then said
the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? Jesus
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am." viii. 56-58.
If, our Saviour did not mean to assert that
he existed before, and at the time that Abra
ham existed, he deceived the Jews, for they so
understood him, and he knew it.
He used this language in the memorable
prayer he offered up before his passion . "And
now, 0 Father, glbrify thou me with thine own
self, with the glory which I had with thee be
fore the world was." John xvii. 5.
This proves that Christ possessed glory with
the Father before the world was.
The fact is now proved that Christ did exist
before he was born of Mary.
He had a pre-existing nature, which was not
human nature. But as the Son pf Mary he
was human.
His pre-existiDg nature joined to the human
nature which he derived from his mother Mary,
make two natures.
We must either deny his pre-existence, or
deny his humanity, or admit that he possessed
two natures.
III. The twofold nature of Christ is preyed
by a class of texts, which so clearly imply that
he was both God and man, that they can ,be
true upon no other principle. Take for ,in-
stance if you please this passage.
" For unto us a child-is Jaorn, 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.''
Isa. ix. 6.
It cannot be maintained that this is all true
of any one nature.'' ,
It cannot all be trne of a being wholly Di
vine because he could never have been a child.
It cannot be a,U trne of a human being because
he could not be called " The mighty God" —

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

67

nor could it be true of an angel for no angel
was ever " child born."
Bnt Mr. May remarked upon this text, that
it was only said he should "be called" the Migh
ty God, not that he was the Mighty God.
The reply is he was so called by inspiration.
So called by divine appointment.
Again it is said, Matt. i. 23. " Behold, a
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel ;
which being interpreted, is, God with us."
" God with us" — God and man. ," God with
as" — God united to us, clothed in our nature.
" If David then called him Lord, how is he
his Son?" Matt. xxii. 45.
Now here is a question asked by our Lord
which no one in heaven nor on the earth can
answer if Jesus was not possessed pf two
natures — " If David then call him Lord how is
he his. Son?" ,
This question can be answered only by ad
mitting the two natures of Christ.
It is said — " In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." " And the Word was made flesh
and dwelt among us." John i. 1, 14.
Tou will remember with what an effort of
labored criticism Mr May dwelt on these pas-
passages denying their •application to Jesus
Christ and affirming that it meant an Aeon or
something else.
Mr. May spoke at once. I said it was writ
ten to disprove the doctrine of the Gnostics that
an Aeon and not God made the world.
Mr. Lee — you said it meant Wisdom.
Mr. May — I said the word might be render
ed Wisdom or Reason.
Mr. Lee — I have no occasion now to go into
any repetition of Mr. May's former argument,
denying that " the word" meant Christ because
he has now swallowed his words. Now he
makes it mean Jesus Christ in order to make
ont his new creation.
Mr. May— I said Christ was referred to in
the 14th verse.
It is said in 1 Tim. iii. 16. " And without
controversy, great is the mystery of godliness :
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory."

This can be explained only on the ground of
his two natures.
'.' Who, being in the form of God, -thought it
,not robbery to be equal with God : But made
himself of no reputation, and took upon him
the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men :" Phil. ii. 6. 7.
" He took" on him the form of a servant, —
Was made &c. That form was humanity. He
was, before he took it. That added to what
he was, made two natures.
" Forasmuch then as the children are parta
kers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise
took part of the same. For verily he took not
on him the nature of angels; bnt he took* on
him the seed of Abraham." Heb. ii. 14, 16.
He " took part" of the same, supposes it to
have been added to what he was.
He took the seed of Abraham &c. He
could not act before he existed. Nor could
this be said of .you or I : or any other only
human being.
" I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am, the
root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and morning star.','
Tho " root" and " offspring" implies the two
natures. " The root" is that on which David grew ;
his Creator. The " offspring" is that which
grew on David ; his son. This is clear. And
no other exposition can be or has been given to
it, IV, The office and work of Christ required
that he should combine a divine and human na
ture in one person.
The necessity of an atonement I am prepared
to defend the moment it is explicitly denied. For
the present it is assumed.
The work of making an atonement for the
sins of men required it.
1. No mere human being could atone for sin.
If Christ was a mere human being, which he
must have been if he did not possess two na
tures, he was under the same law to God that all
other human beings are, and could not atone for
the sins of other human beings.
In order to an atonement, there-must he some
thing engaged on which the law had no claim.
Every created being is bound to dovote all his

68

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

powers to the Creator, during the entire extent
of his rational existence.
But Christ has made an atonement for the sins
of men. This I am ready to prove if it be de
nied. 2. None but a human being could make an
atonement for men.
To redeem human nature, right reason says
human nature must be the offering.
For this we have the opinion of St. Paul :¦
- " Forasmuch then as the chiidren are partakers
of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took
part of the same ; that throngh death he might
destroy him that had the power of death, that
is, the devil."
Death was the penalty of the law, and the
death of the body was one of the consequences
involved. Christ - took our nature and died and rose
again to redeem us from the power of death.
The fact that he was a human being, our
brother, allies us to him, and through him to
God. The two natures were necessary to render
him a suitable mediator between God and men.
" There is one God and one Mediator between
God and men." 1st Tim. ii. 6.
" Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of one,
bnt God is one." Gal. iii. 20.
" He ever liveth to make intercession for
them." Heb. vii. 25.
" Christ is entered into heaven itself, now to
appear in the presence of God for us." Heb.
ix. 24.
Humanity is there, and he represents us in the
court of heaven, with one hand on the throne,
and the other upon us, his poor kinsmen.
V. The doctrine of the two natures of iChrist
may be urged from the fact that no other ac
count can be given of his nature and character.
The Scriptures declare him to be God and
man, but they pronounce him nothing else.
If he is not God and man what is he ?
It will be said that he is the Sonof , God.
Butrwhat is the Son of God ? Is he a God ?
or is he a man ? or is he neither ?
I press the question, What is he ?
If it be said that he was God and not man,
then God was once born a' child, and grew, and
lived, and died.
If it be said that he was a man and not, God,
then we have only a human Saviour, a human

Redeemer, and a human Intercessor, whose am
is but an arm of flesh.
It is written " Cursed be the man that trust-
eth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." Jer.
xvii. 5.
But of Christ it is said, " Blessed are all they
that put their trust in him." Now put that and
that together.
'• If it be said that he was neither God nor
man, what was he ? Was he an angel ? No,
for angels cannot die.
But admit that he was God and man, and all
is plain, and we have a Saviour worthy of ever
lasting trust. : One to whom we can commit our
souls without distrust or fear of being confound
ed. Beneath his protection we may rest secure,
though the uuiverse be moved. For he uphold-
eth all things by the word of his power. This
is our Saviour — this is our Christ. In him we
now trust, aiyl shall forever and forevermore.
MR. MAY'S SECOND SPEECH.
By our Saviour's very explicit disclaimers of
the divine attributes, which Mr. Lee declares
that he possessed, my friend is driven at last to
resort, as I foresaw he must, to the doctrine that
there were two natures in Jesus Christ — that he
was both God and a man. But this seems to
me like leaving a ship, which one finds to be
sinking, for a boat, to which there is no bottom,
If there were ever a sheer device of poor human
ingenuity, it is this of the two natures of Christ.
It could not have been imposed upoh the faith
of the church, but in " the dark ages," when
the understandings of men were so perverted,
that the excellence of one's belief was measured
by the degree of improbability in the proposi
tion, which he professed to believe. Indeed, it
is so utterly inconsistent with that equality,
which is claimed for the three persons in the
Godhead, that I marvel any keen-sighted trini
tarian should resort to it ; and it is so palpably
self-contradictory, that so good a logician. M
my opponent hereshould know better than to
place any reliance upon it.
Before I proceed to examine the texts, Mr. '
Lee has alleged in its support, I will unfold this
strangest of all doctrines, that you, Sir, and oar
audience may see for yourselves, that we are
bound not to believe that such a monstrosity ia
an essential ingredient in the theology of the
Gospel, unless we can find an explicit declara
tion of its trntb, in the words of Christ or hi*

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

69

Apostles. Nay, Sir, in order to convince us
Protcstan ts.the statement of thisdoctrinc should
be even more explicit and emphatic, if possible,
than tbe statement of the doctrine of Transub
stantiation, which we explain as beautifully
figurative, because the literal meaning of Christ's
words would be hideously absurd. And yet the
doctrine of transubstantiation is more possible
than this of " the two natures of Christ." So
utterly incredible, Mr. Chairman, is this doctrine
that we ought to reject such a doctrine as this
because of its absurdity, unless indeed, my
brother can show us, or we can find, a command
from God to adore it as a mystery.
You have heard my brother Lee's statement
of this doctrine Let me now read to you what
the Eev. Mr. Ashley and General Granger, who
have <?o freely denounced me as an infidel, pro
fess to believe, as it is stated in the 2d Article
of the Creed of their Episcopal Church. '¦' The
Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten
from everlasting of the Fatherf the very and
eternal God, of one substance with the Father,
took man's nature, in the womb of the blessed
Virgin, of her substance ; bo that two whole
and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead
and Manhood were joined together in one per
son, never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ,
very God and very man," &c. The statement
of this doctrine is very similar in the 2d Article
of the VIII Chap, of the Presbyterian Confession
of Faith, and what Mr. Lee has stated just now
is tantamount to it. My brother said to me the
other evening in a very dolorous tone, " you
have taken away my Lord, and I know not where
you have laid him." Prav, let me now ask him
what he has done with our Lord Jesus Christ ?
Sir, he has laid him away in an inextricable
labyrinth of words, where neither he nor I can
find him.
Let me first show my friend, how this new
doctrine subverts the one which he set out in
this discussion to prove. He has attempted to
maintain that " in the unity of the Godhead
there are three persons of one substance, power
and eternity." All his arguments hitherto have
been intended to prove that the Son (i. c, the
second person of this trinity,) possessed in and
of himself all the attributes of Deity — all the
omnipotence, omniscience, eternity and immu
tability of God, so that (if his language means
what it implies) I think he might have added,
if there were no Father, and no Holy Ghost, no
first and third persons, the Godhead would yet
be "perfect and entire, wanting nothing." : And

yet to this second person ol his Trinity by
tbe doctrine now before us, he has added
something, he has added perfect manhood.
Now, Sir, if he can establish his original prop
osition, and prove that there are in the God
head three persons, each one equal to the whole
three, then will he destroy that- equality if he
succeed in maintaining this doctrine of two
natures, because, Sir, where there is a perfect
balance, a feather's weight will destroy the
equipoise. But according to this doctrine
somewhat more than a leather was added to
the second person of the Trinity— it was man
hood ; yes, Sir, perfect manhood— a nature,
which according to the Psalmist, was a little
lower than the angels! Surely then, it the
Son before his incarnation was equal with the
Father, after that event, he became his superior
to the extent of an almost angelic nature.
Brother Lee, where now is there any equality
between the three persons of your Godhead 1
Nor is this the only inequality, which my
brother has at least hinted at. He urged, under
the last head of his second speech, on Tuesday
evening, that the whole Gospel was based upon
the glorious fact that Jesus Christ, the second
person of his Trinity, had suffered the punish
ment ^ue to the sins of mankind— had thus
made satisfaction to divine justice, and opened
the door through which aloue we may escape
from the wrath of God and the damnation of
Hell. I am not Bure that I have used his lan
guage precisely, but I have given you his idea,
as it came to me. Now I beg to know what
stronger contrast could be drawn between two
persons than that, which is set before us in this
doctrine of the voluntary humiliation, the pro
pitiatory eelf-sacrifice of the second person, and
the inexorable sternness of the first. The one
sitting aloof in his ineffable majesty, beyond the
reach of the cries and prayers of the penitent,
until the second person, " touched with the
feeling of our infirmities," came down to earth,
"humbled himself as a servant, and became
obedient unto death even the -death of the
cross," that he might save us from eternal woe.
With whom now- 1 ask was all the mercy, all
the love in the divine Being, in the three-one-
God ?--witb the first person or the second?—
with the former who demanded or the latter
who paid the price of man's redemption ? With
equal pertinence might I say to my brother
Lee, by this doctrine, you have taken away my
heavenly Father, and I know not where yon
have laid him, except Jt be, under the necessity

70*

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

of acting the part of an inexorable tyrant.
This cannot be the merciful parent described
in the 103 Ps. and in Christ's parable of the
Prodigal Son.
Again, this doctrine of two natures requires
me to believe that Jesus Christ had two minds
— a human mind capable of being tempted and
of suffering extreme agony; and a divine mind
incapable of either. " Three persons in one
essence," said Mr. Thorn of Liverpool," is un
intelligible enough " ; but before my brother
here has quite convinced me that such is the
nature of the Godhead, he propounds to my
faith this opposite mystery of two natures in
one essence. And here I cannot be put off with
the metaphysical sophistry he attempted the
other evening, when he told me that God's
nature of course, was incomprehensible, and
we must not expect to find it out 'to perfection.
Under that cloud he tried to make me accept a
contradiction as well as a mystery, as I showed
him in my reply. But here in this doctrine of
the two natures, which he would have me be
lieve as an indispensable part of the other,
which cannot be maintained without this, he
has given me as the basis of my reasoning,
something which I do understand, if I under
stand any thing ; " for who knoweth the things
of a man save the spirit of a man which is in
him?" In Algebra it is difficult to solve an
equation, of whioh the terms are all unknown
quantities. But the moment you get a known
quantity into one of the terms, the trouble is
over. Upon that you can base a process of
reasoning that shall bring out the solution-
sought, after. Just so it is in the case before us.
I could not disprove my brother's first propo
sition respecting three infinite persons perhaps,
. excepting so far as I could show that the parts
of It contradicted each other. But in the one
now btefore me, I discover a quantity that is
known to me. One term is a man : and if I
know any thing, I know what a man is, at least
so* far as to perceive that the other parts of
this proposition of two natures God and man
so united as to be one and the same person can
not be true. If I have any idea of God, it is,
that he is an infinite Spirit, who has existed
from all eternity, uncreated, unbegotten, unde
rived, without beginning or end, incapable of
. change, possessed of all wisdom, all power, all
goodness, without a visible body or material
members. My idea of man, if I have any, is that of a
finite being, clothed in flesh and blood, who

began to exist a longer or shorter time ago,;
whose powers are limited, who knows but little ¦
compared With what is to be known, and can:
do but little, by his own unaided strength.
Now is it possible so to compound these ideas
; to make of them one and the same idea?
What can be plainer to the human mind than
that of a finite being cannot be also an infinite
being ; that a person who could do nothing of
himself was hot the veritable Creator of the'
Universe ; that a being of limited knowledge
cannot know every thing.; that a being whtJ
commenced his existence (as this complex per
son, second in the Trinity, certainly did) 185$
years ago, had existed from all eternity ;' that
a person who according to this doctrine at the
commencement of the Christian era, incarnated
himself and superadded to his deity perfect
manhood, is not the being, who has never known
the Bhadow of a change ? These questions an
swer themselves.
But they do not bring us to the end of the
contradictions, inconsistencies, impossibilities
involved in the doctrine, which Mr. Lee has
pressed upon me.
Now, Sir, I have another very .grave objection
to this doctrine, which I wish to submit to your
consideration before I examine the slender
proofs, on which my opponent is willing to rely
for its support., This doctrine of two natures
implicates the moral character of our Saviour,
impeaches his veracity and attributes to him ¦
deceit, equivocation, falsehood. For accordingj,
to, this doctrine, Jesus sometimes spoke and.
acted in his human, and sometimes in his divine v
nature, without admoqishing his hearers, in f
which of his natures he was speaking or acting.
Thus on more than one occasion he declared
that he could of himself do nothing, but if; he
were God he could at that very moment do all
things, and yet he did not tell those who heard
him, that he meant that as a man he could do
nothing. On another occasion he declared that
he knew not the day, nor the hour of judgment.
Now according to this doctrine of his two na
tures, he was ignorant of that great' event, only
as a man, although he knew it perfectly as
God, and yet said nothing to guard his hearers
from misunderstanding him.
Once more, when he forbade the young ruler
to call him good, because " there is none good
but one, that is God." Jf he meant only that
goodness should not be ascribed to him as a
man, while it should be ascribed to him) in Its

DISCUSSION OI' THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

71

highest conceivable measure, as God, why did
he hot intimate that this was his meaning?
And when he forbade his disciples to pray to
him, to, ask any thing of him, but to ask all
things i ol God in his name, how can it be ex
plained, if he knew himself to be God, that he
did not guard his hearers, and those who may
now read the narratives of his life, from danger
ous error by intimating that he meant no one
should worship hinr- or pray to him as a man,
while, as God, the whole universe should do
him homage ? If the doctrine of the two na
tures be true, if Christ was God as well as man,
then he was guilty of what in the mildest term
we call equivocation. If a King or President
should declare that he had no power to pardon
an offender, meaning that he had no power to
do so as a man, while at the same moment as
the supreme ruler, he could set him at liberty
by a word, he would equivocate. If, Sir Isaac
Newton had been asked to tell some earnest
inquirers by what forces the planets were held
. in their orbits, and had replied, he did not know,
meaning that he did not know it as a common
man, while as the discoverer of the great law of
gravitation he understood it very well, all
would say that he equivocated, deceived, said
what was not true. So if Sir John Herschell
should now be interrogated, by persons who
wished to know in what year Erke's Comet will
appear again, and he should answer that he
did not know, meaning all the while, that he
did not know that distant day as a man, while
he did know it, as an astronomer, he would be
guilty of deception. No one would ask him or
Sir I. Newton such questions as common, un
learned men, but as men who had studied these
subjects, and were fairly presumed to know
vastly more than those who put to them the
inquiries, I have supposed.
And more, if Archimedes the philosopher,
of old Syracuse in Sicily, had been applied to,
to move a ton's weight, and had answered that
he had no power'to do it— meaning that by his
own unaided physical strength as a man, he had
not power enough for such an undertaking — he
would justly have been accused of lying, espec
ially by those who had heard him say, in his
scientific lectures, that with the power of the
lever, if he had a suitable fulcrum and a place
to stand on, he could move the world.
Such duplicity — srich deception as this, the
doctrine we are considering, virtually imputes
to Jesus Christ', when his disciples made inqui

ries of him respecting the day of judgment. They
approached him as an uncommon person — as
one, who they were persuaded knew more than
most men, perhaps more than all men ; they
appealed to him to tell them on this important
subject what he knew more than they did— more
than other men knew. If, therefore, in any
way, in any character, or in any nature, he
was able to answer their question, he deceived
them by replying as he did. So likewise in the
other cases to which I have referred. If words
have any meaning, Jesus Christ expressly dis
claimed the possession of any of the attributes
of Deity. He disclaimed omipotence, when he
declared "I can of myself do nothing." He dis
claimed omniscience when he declared " Of that
day and that hour knoweth no man", neither the
Son, but the Father. He disclaimed supreme
and infinite goodness when he said " Why callest
thou me good? there is none good but one that
is good." This is plain language ; there is no
mystery or obscurity in it. The terms "I,"
" me," " my own self," as every one knows, al
ways denotes an individual or person ; and
they include the whole of that person ; they
comprehend all which goes to constitute him
what he is, viewed as an individual or whole.
In this sense our Saviour must have used them,
or he must have been guilty of manifest preva-'
rication. Then consider further — no one who witnessed
his wonderful works supposed that of his own
power, as an ordinary man, he did them ; but
some suspected that he might be a being of a ,
higher, order than human. To that apprehen
sion in his disciples, it was, that he spoke when
,he disclaimed omnipotence, omniscience, and at
tributed his power and wisdom to God who gave
to him all of either of those attributes, that he
had manifested to their admiration.
But again : If there be any part of Christ's
example which is more valuable to beings such
as we are, in the midst of trials and temptations,:
it is his confiding and submissive piety. What
words nerve so powerfully our resolution to
withstand the wrong, as his " get thee behind
me Satan," or rather the spirit which they
evince ? And oh, what words come to us with
such a sustaining power, when our hearts are
ready to sink under a bitter disappointment, or
sore bereavement ; what words in the hour of
overwhelming affliction, help us to say so ex;
actly what should be said by all dependent be? .
ings, and in thetvery utterance of them awaken

72

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

a faith and a submission kindred to that which
inspired them. I say what words were ever
spoken bo full of the spirit of filial trust and
pious resignation as Mb, " the cup which my
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Father not my will but thine be done." But if
this doctrine which Mr. Lee affirms be, true, it
, takes away all reality from Christ's acknowledg
ment of dependence ; his supplications for aid*,
and his expressions of entire acquiescence in
the divine will. If he were God, how could he
have really suffered, as he appeared to do in the
garden of Gethsemane. If in him '• the God
head and manhood were joined together, never
to be divided," what are wo to make of his cry
upon the cross, " my God, my God, why hast
thoii forsaken me ?" If he were the eternal Je
hovah, how could his death upon the cross have
been anything more than an appearance ? His
resurrectiPn and assension too, what evidence
would they be of man's immortality ? If Christ
were God, to whom could he have offered
prayer ? If he were himself the Highest, Holi
est One, to whom could he look up with rever
ence ? If he were the infinite God incarnate,
his prayers must have been offered to himself ;
and thus his devotions become utterly unintel
ligible ; and we are deprived of the strengthen
iqg, comforting influence of his exampleWn our
days of trial, in our nights of affliction.
In conclusion sir, let me say that the use
which this doctrine requires us to make of cer
tain expressions of Scripture, mystifies the Bi
ble, and destroys all confidence in the meaning
of its language. If for the sake of supporting
a system of doctrines, devised centuries after
Christ's ascension, we are required to set aside
the plain, obvious meaning of Christ's declara
tions respecting himself, and assume that he
meant something very different from what he
certainly said. Why, if this be the use we are
to make of the Bible, there can no dependence
be placed upon its teachings ; we had much bet
ter go directly to the creeds of the churches, and
not trouble ourselves to look for any truth be
yond them ; or, better still, go back again into
the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, which
boldly assumes and frankly tells ub that we can
not be trusted to read the word of God for our
selves ; but that the true interpretation of
the Bible is committed to the Church ; nay,
more, that certain doctrines of higher signifi
cance than those which are recorded in Scrip
ture, have been transmitted in the unwritten
word of Apostolic tradition ; andean be learnt

only through the teaching, and on the authority
of the consecrated ministers of the "Holy Cath
olic Church." ,
Such is the retrograde movement to which
such a use as my brother makes of the Bible
obviously tends. But thanks be to God, the
doctrines for which he contends cannot be sus
tained, even by such testimony as he has brought
us from the Bible.
One Scriptural text applied to this theory of
two infinitely different natures in one and the
same person— one Scriptural text alone, seems
to me sufficient to show that it is untrue : al
though I mean, to-morrow evening, to follow
Mr. Lee as far as time will permit, and examine
the texts he has offered you as proofs of this
strangest of all doctrines. The text to which I
refer, wa3 suggested by Rev Mr. Thorn, of Liv
erpool. England. It is one from which my op
ponent cannot escape by avoiding one Bet of
statements by referring them to the humanity
of Jesus, and another Bet of statements by re
ferring them to his deity.
ObBerve, it is God the Son, whom Mr, Lee has
represented as becoming incarnate in the body
of Jesus ; it was God the Son who took human
ity into union with Deity; therefore, whenever
Jesus, in his human nature, speaks of the divin
ity that dwelt within him, inspired him, and
wrought through him, it must be God the Son
to whom ho refers, if he spoke in accordance
with this doctrine. But it so happens, Jesus nev
er did speak in this way ; it was always, "the Fa
ther who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
The New Testament doth not know this doctrine
" of two natures in Christ"— does not support
its requisitions.
SIXTH EVENING-MARCH 10th.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH.
_ This is a long discussion. The audience knows
this, but we who have to bear the laboring oar,
feel it to be s». Yet there are many things that
ask for notice before the direct argument can be
advanced any further. Indeed a whole evening
might be occupied with a review of points not
yet noticed by me, in reply to Mr. May's re
marks. And before I proceed I must review a
few things. Some things he has repeated over
several times, and they seem to be regarded by
Mr. May as the best he can do. It would give
me great pleasure to follow hint on every point,
but this I cannot do for want of time.

DISCUSSION OK THK DOCTRINE OF TOE TRINITY.

73

Before I take up my line of argument I wish
to notice a few incidental matters.
Mr. May complained of me for representing
him as not believing in the inspiration of the
Scriptures. This was ungenerous.
1. I took it for granted that he believed in the
inspiration of the Scriptures, and reasoned ac
cordingly, until he gave me to understand to the
contrary. I did not intimate that he did not believe in
the inspiration of the Scriptures, until I did it
upon the authority of his own words.
2. His words were sufficiently explicit to jus
tify me in my inference that he does not admit
the Scriptures as an authoritative standard —
that he does* not believe that Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, Peter and Paul, were so inspired
as to secure them against error in all they have
written. This was made plain in his appeal to the Rab
bis, in proof that Matthqw quoted loosely, and
made a false application of .what he quoted.
I .This was also implied in his appeal to the po
ets. He placed the poets of the Bible on a lev
: ej with other poets for whom no inspiration is
claimed. The same thing was implied in his defence of
Theodore Parker. I made no attack upon Mr.
Parker, but only quoted him as a Unitarian, as
authority against Mr. May, as he had quoted
s others against me. He defended Mr. Parker
and declared that the Unitarians had disowned
him-r-had almost committed the sin of making a
creed to get rid of him. His'crime is rejecting
the Scriptures as divinely inspired. Mr. May
defended him, and said that he was one of four
who extended, to him the hand of Christian fel-
i lowship. Mr. Parker tells us, in so many words, that
his religion '• bows to no idols, neither the
Church, nor the Bible, nor yet Jesus, but God
only. Its redeemer is within, its salvation with
in, its heaven and its Oracle of God." (Par,
ker's Discourse, page 361.
He has over and over again declared that I
may pile texts heaven-high, and he will not be
lieve the doctrine I advocate.
Mr. May exclaimed^-But against what?
against what?
Mr. Lee— hAgainst a single text of Scriptdre
6

which commends itself to his reason as teaching'
the opposite view.
Mr. May— I said against the words of J&us.
Mr. Lee— He said I might pile texts' heaven
high in favor of my views, he would not believe
the doctrine advodated.
His allusion to Transubstantiation, Uaptiam,
and the Sabbath, was to illustrate the fact that
he did not admit' the unqualified inspiration of
the Scriptures.
3, Though lie complains of me for represent
ing him as not believing in the inspiration of '
the Scriptures, he has not affirmed such belief.
Why does he complain" of me for representing
him as not believing what he fails to declare he
does lfelieve ? Will he now say that he believes
that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ment were written under the influence *of ttoe'in-
spiration of God, and express thetrnth and'no-
thing but the truth on the subjects of wbfch
they treat ? ' Will he do it ?
The next point I wish to notice is his ii'ew
creation argument.
He maintains that in all those texts which 1
have urged as proof of Christ's creative power
and acts, tbe material creation is not meant, but
the new or moral creation.
Whatever else may be said of our disctissMra,
it may be said of it in truth, that it has brought
out some new things, and this is one of them —
this new creation. And T now say in reference
to it, that — ¦
1. This is a change of ground from his first
position. Ho denied that Christ was the person
spoken ot in the first of John. Now he admits
that the word Logos does denote Christ, as 'he
contends that the creation there spoken of is the
new moral heavens, and that Christ made them.
2. His criticism on the word " by," is un
sound. This Greek particle, with an accusative
or genitive, signifies an active cause of any thing.
As " the world was made by him."
Take a single illustration—" Which was spo
ken by the prophet." Matt. ii. 23.
" By him were all things created." Col. i. 16.
If it was the prophet that spoke the word in
question, it was Christ that created all thlngfe ;
for the words were spoken " by" the'pr6phef,abd
all things were made " by" Ghrist."
For the particle " by" puts theip*opfie*>pre-
cisely in the same relation to the wordsBpokeo,

74

DISCUSSION 0¥ THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

as it does Christ in relation to the creatipn.of alf
things. 3|So that, I repeat, if the prophet spake
these words, then did Christ do all those, things
attributed to him.
3. His criticism on the Greek word aion, is
unsound. He says the word fs never used tp ex
press the material, visible world. This is a mis
take. • ,:
" The children of this world ,marry and are
given in marriage. But they that shall, be
accounted worthy to obtain that world, neither
marry nor are given in marriage." Luke xx.
34,35. , ,,','!'' ,;,
Here the language puts,!' this world" where
they marry in opposition to " that world," where
they dp not marry. The Greek wprd.a«m is
there used in speaking of this world. , But, it is
not the if new creation." I quote, now, other
texts, where , the same word is used to express
the material world. ' ...
" Be not conformedto this world." , Romans,
xii. 2. ,,-,
" Not the wisdom of this world, nor the prin
ces of this world, which come to nought." 1st
Cor. ii. 6. ,
" The God of this world." 2d Cor. iy, 4.
" In this world and that which is to come."
Eph.'i. 21.
" Charge them that are rich in this world,
that they be not high minded, nor trust in uncer
tain riches." 1st Tim. vi. 17.
" Having loved this present world." 2d Tim.
iv. 10. , ,
" Through faith we understand that the worlds
were framed by the word of God, so that things
which, are seen were not made of things which
do appear." Heb. xi. 3.
This^text clearly speaks of the visible creav
tion, as it speaks of the things that are seen.
In all the above texts the word in the original
is aion or aionos.
Now, no pretext will avail him to prove.' by
criticism that this means the new creation: But
if attempted, it would certainly prove very
amusing to every Greek scholar in the house.
4. Had he been correct in his Greek criticism
it would not have been sustained. For though this
word ; is, nsed in Heb. i- 2, " by whom he made
the world," it was the " kosmos". world that
¦Christ made. , , i
John i. 10, " He was in the world, and the

wprld was made by him." Here also^tfa* word
used is kosmos. . i
It cannot be pretended that this word is used
to express the new creation.
5. The world which Christ made comprises
earth and heaven.
" Thou Lord hast laid;the foundations of the
earth, and the heavens, are the work of thy
hands." Heb. 1. 10.
The Greek word here rendered earth is gee.
It occurs about 300 times sin the JiTfew Testa
ment, and is translated, "country, earth, earthly,
ground, land, world."1 , .
It cannot by any possible means be made to
signify the new creation. 
The word rendered heaven is " vufanos," and
is; i translated "air, heaven, heavenly, skyi" It
might be made to signify the new heaven, were
it not connected with earthy which means this
material earth.
6. There are qualifying terms connected with
the creation which Christ performed, that prove
it to have been the material Worlds.
" The heavens and earth which he made, (Heb.
i. 10,) are 'to wax old and pass awfty."'
" They shall perish but thou remainest ; and
they all shall wax old as doth a garment ; and
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, but thou
art the same and thy yearsshall notfail." Heb.
i. 11. 12.
Now the very heavens and earth of the crea
tion that Christ produced by his power, are to
be wrapped up and laid away.. Are the new
created souls of this " new creation" to wax old,
and fail, and.be laid away t
" By him were all things created, that are in
heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisi
ble ; whether they be thcones, or dominions, or
principalities or powers ; all things were created
by him and for him."
Note the terms used —
(1.) "All things."
This includes every kind of creation that had
then been performed.
(2.) All " visible" things. This includes the
material world.
(3.) All invisible" things. This includes the
spiritual world.
(4.) Different orders are specified.1 '
" Thrones, dominions, principalities, and pow
ers," These are supposed to be different orders

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

76

of angels. Mr. May said civil governments
are meant by principalities.
Are our governments a part of the new
creation ?
7. His criticism on en arke, in the beginning,
is of no avail.
This word signifies the beginning, and its
sense must be determined by the nature of the
case. It signifies the origin or commencement of
what ever it i3 applied to.
But John cannot mean to say the Word,
Logos, Christ, was in the beginning of the new
dispensation. That would make him assert
that Christ was in the beginning of his own
gospel. Would any one be likely to suppose
he did not exist so early as his own gospel.
The gospel bears the name of Christ upon its
face ; he is its sum and substance, its life and
power, and its glory. No one therefore could
fail to know that Christ was in the beginning
of , the gospel.
But suppose the beginning of Creation be
meant, and a great truth is revealed; and a
Saviour is presented able to save, for he made
the world.
8. If I were to abandon all that I have said,
and admit that the new Creation iee meant, it
would not in the least relieve the desperate and
sinking cause of my |friend. Then would it
follow that Christ would'^have to be omnipo
tent and omnipresent to carry on the work of
the " new Creation." It must require just as
much power to renew pne heart, as to make a
world. I admit that regeneration may be called a
new creation, but almighty power alone can ef
fect it.
The sinner is deadjn sin, and cannot bring
himself to life.
Dead in trespasses and in sins is the emphat
ic language of the Scripture. And I care not
whether death be the death of the body or the
soul, it is the negation of life. When the life
of the one or the other is lost'it is lost forever
unless renewed by the powerlthatgaveitbirth.
And that power must be omnipotent.
Again, Christ cannot renew hearts where he
is not. If he is but a man, and in heaven,
how can he create hearts anew on earth ?
9. A final objection which I will urge against

my brother's new creation doctrine, is, that the
new creation is not performed by Christ, but
by the Holy Ghost. Men are created anew in
Christ Jesus, but it is by the Holy Ghost.
" But after that the kindness and love of
God our Saviour toward man appeared. Not
by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost ; Which he shed on us abundantly,
through Jesus Christ our Saviour."
It was through Christ as our mediator that
the Holy Ghost was given, but it was the Spir
it that produced the new creation. Here you
have it then. Mo mnch for new creation.
MR. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
I did not intend to occupy your time with
any thing away from the question, bnt the re
mark of Mr. Lee about my disbelief of the
Scriptures, requires a word.- To discuss that
is out of place here. But at a proper time I
stand ready to discuss with him the origin, au
thority and inspiration of the Scriptures, or
with any other minister of Syracuse ; for I have
nothing to conceal on this matter. My views
differ very materially from the commonly re
ceived opinions on those subjects.
Mr. Lee has again, unintentionally do doubt,
misrepresented me respecting my quoting from
Everett's Defence. But the purpose for which
I quoted those passages is fully explained in
my former speech, and will be published in full.
I refer you to that for all necessary explanation.
My views of the new creation I did not expect
would be acceded to by Mr. Lee or any other
person at once. I announced to you that they
were at variance with the commonly received
opinions. And to all his objections to those
views, the best answer I can give is to advise
you to read it as printed in the published re
port—consider its positions, compare them with
the Scriptures— and I am sure you will find
answers there to all the objections brought
against them.
Mr. Lee quoted Heb. 1 : 10, 11, 12. Now I
deny that they refer to Christ, but to the God
who anointed him above his fellows. That
takes away that text from him so far as I can
understand its meaning. But I must leave this
and some other snbjects for the present, and
proceed with the argument, for I am as anxious
on this matter as is my brother Lee ; not that
I am weary of aiding you in ascertaining the

w

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THK TRINITY.

truth, while your patience lasts, but, there may
be too- much ojf a good thing.
Mr, Lee o.ffeijeji, as his first argument injsnp-
port of the two natures of Christ, the inference
which he and other Trinitarians draw from ihe
comparison of two classes of texts, which speak
of JesUs Christ as man or a ma,n, in whpm were
exhibited all the usual phenomena of humanity,
birth, necessity for food, weariness, need of rest
— life, death, with all the affections and feelings
that are called out by the trials and temptations
oflife. I
And, that class, in which my friend; and those
who bejlieve, as he does, think they find evidence,
that, hejwas not only called' by the names and
titles of the Deity, but that he possessed and
exercised the attributes of God.
Now Sir, it is the comparison of these classes
of $exts, (which has led me to the opposite con
clusion. ,
Jesns calls himself, and is called by others in
the N. T. u man forty times — the son of man
upwards of eighty times— a prophet or one of
the prophets nineteen times. He is called the
seed of God fifty-six times — the Son of God
with kindred appellations about one hundred
and twentj/'times — a child of God and the ser
vant of God eight times. (See Willson's Proofs.)
Jesus assured' his disciples that he lived wholly
fcy the father ; that he could do nothing of him
self ; that his'doctrine'was not his own, but his
that sent him. He declared that all his powers,
mighty as they were, were given him of God.
The men of his generation did not suspect
that he was the incarnate Jehovah, or they
might have shrunk from the attempt to put
him tp death. He did not declare himself to
them, and on one occasion when they accused
him of having made himself equal with God,
(John v. 18,) he justified the language he had
asedjby reminding his accusers of the higher
titles, than he had taken, which used to bo be
stowed upon the prophets. The wonderful mir
acles, which he wrought: on some occasions, so
astoniBhed the people as to draw from them the
exclamation, God is with him ; but never seems
tohave awakened the supposition, that he might
be God himselt.
Even hisimmediate disciples, the twelve that
companied with him during his ministry, heard
not only his public discourses and parables, but
received much instruction from him in private,
seem not to have learned this stupendous fact
fcom him before his crucifixion. They never
intimated to the priests and rulers, that they

were intending to put God to death ; and so
little confidence had they in his power, that
when Jesus was betrayed by one of their num
ber, another, the boldest of them all, denied
him, and the rest forsook him and fled,
And after they had seen him alive again, and
received his final instructions, and witnessed
his ascension, we cannot find a single instance
in any of their discourses, in which they de
clared that their beloved master was God in
carnate. Turn, Mr. Chairman, to the Acts of
the Apostles, and read for yourself each and
every one of their discourses, and find if you
can my friend Lee's doctrine respecting Christ
declared in either one of them. Now, Sir, a
doctrine like this— one, tob, that was to be as
my brother told us last evening, it is the basis,
the corner stone of the whole religion of Christ,
we might expect would appear not only, very
-plainly, but very frequently, in the discourses
oi the first promulgators of this new religion.
What would; pe thought of the ministers of the
present day, who believe the doctrine of the
two natures of Christ, if it should never appear
in their discourses or prayers ? I suspect their
reputation for orfhodoixy would not be mneh
better than mine is.
Now, Sir, as actions speak louder than words,
and always have, I cannot help being ' much
affected iit forming my opinions of Christian
doctrine, by what I learn from the Acts of the
Apostles. So when I come to read what was
written some years after the events and speech'
es that are recorded in that book — when I read
the narratives which four of, them wrote of the
ministry of Jesns, and the Epistles which sever
al others addressed to the Churches, with which
they had been connected, and that most enig
matical of all books, " the Revelation." the
authorship Ot which is not known and the con
tents of which have puzzled the most ingenious
commentators — 1 say, Sir, when I come to read
these books, and find those passages, on which
my friend Lee relies so much to sustain his in
comprehensible doctrine, I feel bound, Sir, t^
look at those passages iu the light of other
Scriptures. Not one of them states the doctrine
of " the Trinity," or the doctrine of " the two
natures in Christ," as he holds it, and therefore
I must interpret them to mean what seems tit
me to be the most in accordance with the Satered
Scriptures, in which these passages occur,
I find, in a number of instances, divine titlec
givento Jesus Christ, though not one instance,
in which tbe peculiar name of Jehovah is indlf-

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

77

putably bestowed upon him. But, on turning
to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, with
which all the writers of the New had been fa
miliar from their youth up, I find very many
instances in which the names of God are given
to his distinguished messengers, or to persons,
who in the course of his providence were raised'
up for some especial purpose, I have already,
on a former evening, mentioned these names ;
and I was astonished last evening, to hear Mr.
Lee declare that no mere human being could
or would have been called " Immanuel," or
"the Mighty God," " the Everlasting Father,"
" the Prince of Peace," when so many orthodox
commentators — Grotius, Lemborch, Gataker,
White and Calmet amongst the earlier, and
Home, J. P. Smith and Prot. Stuart amongst
the tatter writers since the Reformation — all
allow that those names were primarily be
stowed upon some person or persons born about
the time or soon after the prophecies were ut
tered. I have not time to go over this matter
again, but shall leave Mr. Lee at variance with
those high authorities so long as he sees fit to
remain so. Certainly, whoever will read the
7th< 8th and 9th Chapters of Isaiah, will receive
the impression, that these wonderful names were
first bestowed upon some one who lived in Hie
days of the Prophet, and were bestowed prima
rilyupon that person by the same inspiration
that bestowed them secondarily upon Christ.
find on reading the Scriptures, other names of
GOd, that were bestowed upon distinguished
men, and therefore I infer, that no proof of the
Deity of Christ can be found in the fact, that
ouch titles may have been given him.
And as to the evidence, which Mr. Lee seemed
to brmg in a formidable array of texts, that the
attributes of Deity were aseribed to Jesus, I
must again insist that all that evidence is dis
sipated by Christ's own explicit disclaimers of
those attributes.
Mr. Lee next insisted that the evidences of
Christ's pre-existence all go to show that he
possessed two natures. It might be sufficient
to say in reply to this,- that all the Arians, of
the earliest and of the latest times, have con
tended stoutly for this doctrine Of the pre-ex-
stence, and yet have denied his Deity.
The pre-existence of all human souls has been
believed by many heathen as well as Christian
philosophers, especially since thedays of Plkto.
And lately the Rev. Dr. Edward Beecher, an
eminent orthodox divine, has published a vol
ume, "Tbe Conflict of Ages," in which he main

tains this doctrine as the only avenue to the
solution of the fallen state of humanity in this
present world.
I frankly confess, that I have not made up
my mind upon this point. But I am satisfied
that if Jesus of Nazareth did exist before he
lived on this earth, it would by no means fol- '
low, that he was God as well as man ; for all
the reasons that the Arians Urged on this point,
and many more that might be added if it were
necessary. But Mr. Lee quoted vi. 62. " What and If ye
shall see the Son of man ascend up where he '
was before."
To understand this.passage we must first con
sider the meaning of a previous one, John iii. IS,
whieh I am not sure though I think Mr. Lee did
quote last evening. Certainly it is as much to
his purpose as any that he brought forward.
It is, " No man hath ascended up to heaven but
he that came down from heaven, even the son
of man which is in heaven."
Mr. Lee said — I did not quote it on that point
last night.
Mr. May — Ah, well. I was designing to com
ment upon it, and he will pardon me for intro
ducing it, for it is a real good one for his side.
Mr. Lee — Yes, but I want to make"' my own
quotations. Mr. May— To be sure. Well',' then I take that
part back, rhd will only say a few things, pre
paratory to the exposition of the passage he did
quote. And here I am reminded of a ludicrons
criticism on the mode some people have of quot
ing Scripture. I am almost ashamed to intro
duce it, and yet the quotations made by my broth
er, while they do not warrant such a criticism, do
remind me of this illustration of the mode. Yon
can prove any thing fromthe Scripture by put
ting detached portions together. It is said in
one olaee, " And Judas went and hanged him
self " ; again, " Go thou and do likewise." And
yet again it is said, "That thou doest do quick
ly." But to return to the argument.
If the Scriptures of the Old Testament be true
then the declaration of Jesus in this passage
cannot be understood literally " that no man
hath ascended up to heaven," because we have
accounts of the translatibns to that blissful re
gion of Enoch and of Elijah. It was also not
literally true that Christ, since he become the
Son of man, had ever been there, allowing it,
for the- sakfe of thfe argument, to be a place, a
far-off region. We ha«fe no account df \if *s-

78

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

eension of our Lord until that, which took place
after his resurrection from the dead. The lit
eral sense of this passage, therefore, cannot be
tbe true one. And if ascending up to heaven
cannot be taken in a literal sense, neither can
coming down from heaven be understood of a
literal descent, but each must be interpreted in
conformity with the other. Now according to
common and ordinary ways of thinking and
speaking, heaven is supposed to be upwards,
and those who wish to be acquainted with the
will of God must ascend (in thought at least)
to be informed concerning it. Our Lord follow
ing this popular idea, and adapting his discourse
to it, makes use of these figurative expressions,
that no other one was so fully acquainted as
himself with the divine counsels or designs for
the welfare and happiness of the human race,
because he was continually in heaven, that is,;
in a heavenly state of mind, dwelling in thought
on those subjects and holding continual commu
nion with the Heavenly Father. It certainly
will not do to understand this last clause," the
son of man which is in heaven," literally, be
cause it cannot be true that the son of man, the
material fleshy part of Jesus Christ, could have
eome down from heaven and have been in heav:
en at the same time. It would be equal in ab
surdity to the doctrine of transubstantiation to
suppose this. The whole passage therefore
must be figurative, describing in this imagery
the spiritual elevation, heavenly mindedness of
Jesus ; that while he was in the' midst of the
scenes and excitements of earth, he was dwell
ing upon those high themes, which Nicodcmus
could not comprehend, until he should become
less earthly minded and literal.
I am very much confirmed in the correctness
of this interpretation, and am the more sure it
is the just one, because I find similar language
used in the Old Testament. Thus Moses speak
ing to the Jews concerning the will of God says
to them (Dent. xxx. 12), " It is not in heaven
that thou shouldst say who shall go up for us to
heaven, and bring it unto us that we may hear
it and do it — 14, but the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou
mayeet do it." So in Prov.xxx. 4, " Who hath
ascended up into heaven, or descended, what is
his name and what is his son's name if thou
•anst tell." The plain meaning then of our
Lord's words, when stripped of their metaphor
ical dress, was no more than this : I the son of
man, the Messiah, alone am fully acquainted
with the divine will, or the counsels of the

Father ; his presence is ever with me, and
therefore these heavenly things, of which I
jak, are as well known to me, as if I had
ascended up to heaven and received instruc
tions from the Father of light.
Now, I think we are prepared to ascertain
the meaning of the vi. John 62, " What and if
ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he
was before?" It is certainly an obsoure text,
and cannot be taken literally by my friend on
the other side, any more than by myself. For
he will not contend that the second person of
his Trinity was the Son of man, until he was
incarnated ; and surely he will not aver that
this whole complex being was in heaven, (con
sidered as a place above this world,) until after,
his death, resurrection and ascension. Some
other sense than the literal one, therefore,
seemed to be the true one. The very learned
Dr. Lardner says this passage should not be
understood literally, " and thinks that our Lord
intended by it only to say, that he should not
be always personally here." The words seem
however to me to mean much more. The ut
most that could be inferred from these words
understood literally, would be that the Son of
Man had bpen perhaps at the commencement of
his ministry taken up intp heaven, and there
instructed in the divine counsels. This was
the opinion of Socinius, and of the early Polish
Unitarians, who supposed that he was taken up
info heaven, before he commenced his public
ministry, as Moses was called up into Mount
Sinai, or as Paul was caught up into the third
heavens, and there received the divine command.
Of this however there is no account nor any
thing that bears a resemblance to such an oc
currence in his, life, except it; be, his sojonrn of
40 days in the wilderness immediately after his
baptism. I think, however, by attending to the context
of the prayer before us, we can discover our
Lord's meaning, assisted by the light we receiv
ed in contemplating the other passage iii. 13.
A few verses before the one we are attempting
to explain, Jesus had said I am the living bread,
which came down from heaven — meaning of
course— that his doctrine was from God, and
that it was necessary to the life of the soul of
every man. He presses upon every one the
necessity of receiving it, embracing it, under
standing it, digesting it, that it may become the •
food of the soul. Eating a doctrine or the books
that contains it, is not an unheard of expression,
even in onr days. Lord Bacon, in his adraira

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINK OF THE TRINITY.

79

ble essay on studies, says ' Some books are to
be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some
few to be chewed and digested." Baruk, the
scribe of Jeremiah, was directed to eat the book
he had written at the direction of the prophet —
that is make the contents of it wholly his own.
Now this seems to me to open to us the meaning
of our Lord in the passage beginning with the
fourth verse of this chapter, which has been as
we Protestants think so strangely perverted by
our Roman Catholic brethren.
Whether his disciples at the moment under
stood him is doubtful. They thought it a hard
doctrine, which it seems to me they could not
have done, if they had apprehended his meaning
to be that his doctrines must enter into the
minds and hearts of men, in order that they
may be profited by them.
Seeing that they misunderstood him, he said,
" What and if ye see the Son of Man ascend up
where he was before ?" What if I should go
away from you — withdraw myself from you in
to the contemplative retirement, in which I liv
ed thirty years before I commenced my ministry
— yon would still have with you my doctrine,
the fruit, of the spirit that is in me ; and it ie
that which must strengthen, guide, govern you,
not my personal presence with you. " It is
needful for you that I go away," he said to them
on anothor occasion, " for if I go not away, the
comforter, which is the spirit of truth, will not
come unto you." MR. LEE'S 8E0ON0 SPEECH.
The points to be proved are, that the Holy
Ghost is of one substance power and eternity
with the Father, existing personally distinct,
yet in unity of the Godhead.
I. The Holy Ghost is called by the names
by which God is known. " And one cried to
another, and said, Holy, holy, i3 the Lord of
hosts, the whole earth is full of his glorj.
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,
whom shall I send, and who will go for us ? Then
I said, here am I, send me. And he said, go
and tell this people. Hear ye indeed, but un
derstand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive
not." Isa. vi. 3, 8, 9.
The point here is this, the Lord sent the
prophet Isaiah.
The speaker said, whom shall I send, and
who will go for us. Us, the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost was the speak
er who sent Isaiah, and he is called the Lord,

the Jehovah. This is proved by the words of
Paul. " And when they agreed not among them
selves, they departed, after that Paul had spo
ken one word ; Well spake the Holy Ghost by
Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying,
Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing ye
shall see, and not perceive :" Acts xxviii. 25, 26.
The prophet says, the Lord, the Jehovah
sent him, and told him what to say.
Paul says he spake by the Holy Ghost, or
rather that the Holy, Ghost spake by the
prophet. " And he called the name of the place Mas-
sah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of
the children of Israel, and because the tempted
the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not ?
Exo. xvii. 7.
Compare this with Heb. iii. 7-9. " Where
fore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day, if ye
will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as
in the provocation, in the day of temptation in
the wilderness; When your fathers tempted
me, proved me, and saw my works fortyjears."
In the first of these, texts it is affirmed that
they tempted the Lord, Jehovah.
In the second the Holy Ghost says, " your
fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my
works forty years."
" And it was revealed unto him by the Holy
Ghost, that he should not see death before he
had seen the Lord's Christ. Lord, now lettest
thou thy servant depart in peace, according to
thy word : For mine eyes have seen thy salva
tion." Luki ii. 26, 29, 30.
Here, what was revealed to him by the Holy
Ghost, he calls "thy word," addressing, the
Lord. " But as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name : Which were
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God." John. i.
12, 13.
" For whatsoever is born of God overcometh
the world : and this is the victory that over
cometh the world, even our faith." 1 John, 4.
" Jesns answered, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Exeept a man be born of water and of

80c.,

DISCISSION OF THE DqQtBNUS OF, TIJE TRINITY.

the. Spirit, he cannot .enter into, the 'kiagdom,
of God." John iii. 5.
In the first two of these t^xts, men are said
to be born of Gpd.
In the third text, they are said to be born
of the Spirit.
{'But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan
filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and
to l?eep back part of the price pf tiie land?
While it remained, was it not in thine own ?
and after it was sold, was it not . in thine own
power ? Why hast thou conceived this thing
in thy heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men,
bnt unto God." Acts, v.- 3, 4.
The* conduct of Ananias is called lying to the
Holy Ghost ; and in the next breath it is de
clared, to be lying unto God. , '
The Holy Ghost, then is God.
" Whom God hath raised up, having loosed
the pains of death : because it was not possi
ble that'he shpjild'b.e holden of it." Actsii, 24-.
" For Christ also hath once suffered for sins,
the just for the unjust, that he might bring us
to| God, feeing put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit." 1 Peter iii. 18.
In the'first of these texts, it is said that God
raised Christ from the dead. '
In the second, it is declared that he was
quickened by the Spirit.
" All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reprOof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness."
2 Tim. iii. 16.
In accordance with this declaration we read,
" The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak
unto the children of Israel." &c.
" Then came the word of the Lord to Isaiah,
saying'' *C. Isa. xxxviii. 4.
SoJJeremiah says, " Moreover the word of
the Lord came unto me saying." Jer. ii. 1.
"" The word of the Lord came expressly unto
Ea-Skiel," Eze. i. 3.
" The word of the Lord that came unto
Hozea;" Hozea i. 1.
* The word of the Lord that came unto
Joel." Joel i. 1.
" The word of the Lord came unto Jonah."
Jonah i- 1-
" The, burden of the word of the Lord to
Isjael by MalaoMv" i. 1.
>{*, For the prophecy, came not in old time by

the, will of man: but hp}y men of Qod <sp*e .
as tliey were moved by the Holy Ghost." . 2 ,
Peter i. 2.
It is obvious from these remarks > that the
Holy Ghost is God. The word of the Lord
came but it came by the Holy Ghost.
II. Personal actions are, throughout the
Scriptures, attributed to the Holy Ghost, Holy
Sririt, and.Spirit of Gocl.
] " And the earth was without form, android ;
and darkness was npon the. face of the deep :
and the Spirit of God moved npon the face of
the waters. And God said, Let there be-light :
and there was light." Gen. ii. 3.
The Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters— G6d said let there be light. Here
is a clear distinction of persons.
" Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are
created ; and thou renewest the face of the,
eartji." . Ps. cyi. 30.
i God is the sender, and the Spirit is the sent
—The Spirit is represented as creating.
"Whither shall I gO from thy Spirit? or
Whither Shall I flee from thy presence?' If I
ascend up into heaven, thbu1 art there( ; If I
inake my. beil in hell, behold, thoii art there.
If I take toe wings of the morning, and
dwell in the uttermost partg pf thesea jEveij.
there shall thy hand lead me, and, thy right
hand shall hold me." Ps. cxxxix. 7-10.
The Spirit of God, and the presence of God
are represented as two things.
; Both are represented as every where.
" The Spirit of the Lord, God is upon me ; "
because the, Lord hath anointed me to preach
good tidings unto tiie meek :" Isa, lxi. 1.
" And be began to say unto them, This day
js this scripfure fulfilled in your ears." Lukp.
iv. 21.
What-wap upon him, if we deny tjie. person
ality of the Spirit. (
" Then the spirit took , me up, and J heard
behind me a voice of a great rqshing, saying,
Blessed be the glory of the Lord.frqm his place,
I heard, also. the. noise of, the, wings,of the, liv
ing creatures that touched one another,, and
the noise of the wheels over against them, »nd
a noiBe of a;great rushing. Sp thejspiriitjliftec]
me up, andtteok me away, and I wenf,^ bit*
terness, ia the heat of my spirit ; butyje hand.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

81

of thu Lord was strong upon me." Ezekiel iii.
12-14. Here the Spirit actually, transported the
prophet. " And Jesus, when he was baptized, went
up straightway out of the water : and, lo, the
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending hke a dove, and light
ing upon him : And, lo, a voice from heaven,
saying, This is my-beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased." Matt. iii. 16, 17.
Here we see Christ' coming up from the
water, the Spirit descending, and the Father
speaking from heaven.
«' Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into
the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil."
Matt. iv. 1.
The Spirit here performed a personal action.
" But when they shall lead you, and deliver
you up, take no thought beforehand what ye
shall speak, neither do ye premeditate ; but
whatsoever shall be given you in that hour,
that speak ye : for it is not ye that speak, bat
the Holy Ghost." Mark xiii. 11.
The Holy Ghost is here said to speak in or
through men. This implies intelligence, as well
as personality.
" And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them : And they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them' utterance." Acts. n.
3,4. " Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near,
and join thyself to this chariot." Acts viii. 29.
" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and
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." Acts xx. 28.
Here is an official act said to have been
done by the Holy Ghost.
" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God : Rom.
viii. 16.
How can the Spirit bear witness with
our Spirits if it is not a personal identity and
agent. "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirm
ities : for We know not what we should pray
for as we ought : bat the Spirit itself maketh

intercession for us with groaniogs which can
not be uttered." Bom. viii. 26.
The Spirit, to help, must be, not only a per
sonal identity, but an intelligent active agent,
or power.
" But we are bound to give thanks always
to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen
you to salvation throngh sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth :" 2 Thes. ii. 13.
Here the Spirit is represented as the great
agent in our salvation.
We are sanctified by the Spirit.
" Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils : 1 Tim. iv. 1.
" How much more shall the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God ?"
Heb. ix. 14.
Here we have the whole Trinity.
Christ offering himself, through the eternal
Spirit, to God the Father;
The Spirit possesses the attribute of eternity.
" And the spirit and the bride say, Come.
And let him that heareth say, Come. And let
him that is athirst come : and whosoever will,
let him take the water of life freely," Rev.
xxii. 17,
ni. There are many texts of Scripture,
which not only imply the personality of the
Holy Ghost, but which can never be explained
upon any other principle.
" Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of
sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men :
but the blasphemy agamst the Holy Ghost
shall not be forgiven unto men. And whoso
ever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speak
eth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in
the world to come." Matt. xii. 31, 32. ¦¦.
Call the Holy Ghost what you may, this text -
will never make sense, unless you admit ita
personality- Call it an attribute of God.
Call it the pow6r of God.
Call it a manifestation of God.
Call it the influence of God.

82

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINK OF THE TRINITT.

There is no ground for the unpardonableness
of the sin, if yon deny the personality of the
Spirit " And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily
shape like a dove upon him ; and a voice came
from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved
Son ; in thee I am well pleased." Luke iii. 22.
No one can tell what it was that descended,
if the personal existence of the Holy Ghost be
denied. Let my opponent tell what we are to under
stand by the Holy Ghost in this text.
" Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost :
as your fathers did, so do ye.'. Acts. vii. 51.
Here the Holy Ghost is made to be a nniform
something which both they and their fathers re
sisted. What did they resist ?
'¦ While Peter thought on the vision, the
Spirit said nnto him, Behold, three men seek
thee." Acts x. 19.
Can any one tell what or who spake to Peter,
Without admitting the personality of the Spirit ?
" How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
the Holy Ghost and with power ; who went
about doing good, and healing all that were
oppressed of the devil : for God was with him."
Acts x. 38.
Wifh what did God anoint Jesus ?
With himself? With one of his attributes?
With a divine manifestation ?
' As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted,
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas
and Saul, for the work whcreunto I have called
them." Acts xiii. 2.
Here the Holy Ghost represents, 'himself as
a personal idsntity, by applying to himself the
personal pronoun me, and I. Here are three
points :
1. The Holy Ghost had called Barnabas and
Paul. 2. The Holy Ghost spake to the church or
their leaders.
3. The Holy Ghost required that they be set
apart for him or to him. Separate me, &c.
"And when Paul had laid his hand npon
them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they
spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts
six. 6.

There was something that came on them.
What was it ?
It was somethingwhichgavc them the use
of language before unknown.
It was something which gave them views of
truth not before possessed, for they prophesied
or taught.
What was that that which came upon them
and did all this, called the Holy Ghost ?
"And my speech and my preaching was not
with enticing words of man's Wisdom, but in ,
demonstration of the Spirit and of power : 1
Cor. ii. 4.
The Spirit is here represented as a convin
cing or proof giving agent, attending , and op
erating through Paul's preaching. What was
it? ,:,-*
Bat God hath revealed them unto us by his
Spirit .-for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea,
the deep things of God." 1 C,orf,ii. 10.
1. God reveals the high and hory things he
has prepared for us. ,4
2. ThiB is done by the Spirit,
3. And this revelation, the Spirit is capable
of making, because he, searcheth all things, yea
the deep things of God."
How can this be explained ? ,
If by the Spirit you mean God himself', or
any of his attributes, denying the distinction
of persons in the Godhead, yon make Pau
say that God reveals these unto ns by himself, ,
and that God searches the deep things of him
self. If yon deny the essential divinity of the
Spirit, yon make some created or mere ideal
being search the deep things of God.
For through him we both have an access by
one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii. 18.
The word "both,"' denotes Jews and Gentiles
both come to God by the same way.
Here we have the whole Trinity.
I. We have access to the Father, the first
person in the Trinity.
2. This access is throngh Christ, the Son,
the second person in the Trinity.
3. This access to the Father through the
Son, is by the Spirit, the third person in the
Trinity. Deny the personality of the Spirit .and who
can tell by whom or by what it is that we have*
access to the Father through Christ ?

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

What is this third agent.
4. The difficulty which must attend every
Attempt to explain what the Holy Ghost is,
if its divinity and personality be denied, must
go far to confirm the Trinitarian view.
What is the all-pervading, enlightening, sanc
tifying and saving agent called the Holy
Ghost? 1. Is it a created spirit, as an angel, or any
created being.
It cannot be for many reasons.
(1.) It ia called "the eternal Spirit." Heb.
9.14. (2.) It is called the Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost
God's Spirit, and the Spirit of God, by way of
destinction. If it be a created being, it is no
more the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God,
than an angel or the Spirit of a just man made
perfect, for they are God's and are holy.
(3.) The Holy Ghost, so called, is one. bnt
created spirits are, with us, numberless. There
is an innumerable company of angels and spir
its of just men made perfect. They are all
holy spirits, and yet there is bnt one Holy
Spirit, called the Holy Spirit.
(4.) The works which are attributed to the
Holy Ghost clearly prove that he is no created
spirit. " The Spirit of God moyed npon the face of
the waters." Gen. i. 2.
'^By his Spirit he garnished the heavens."
Job. xxvi. 13.
He inspired the prophets. " Holy men of
God spake, as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost." 2 Peter i. 21.
" All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God." 2 Tim. iii. 16.
If the Holy Ghost that inspired the prophets
was a created being, it is not given by inspir
ation of God.
The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary the
the Mother of Jesus, and he was begotten by
the Holy Ghost. Mary was his mother, but
was a created being his father ? What was
that being ?
The Holy Ghost is the Regenerator and
Sanctifier of mankind.
" Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, bnt according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renew
ing of tbe Holy Ghost :" Titos iii. 5.

He who would trust the renewal of his
heart to any created being does not know him
self, the depth and strength of the -depravity of
his heart.
(5.) The fact that the one only unpardonable
sin is a sin against the Holy Ghost, proves that
he cannot be a created being.
MR. HAT'S SECOND SPEECH.
Mr. Lee quoted Ex. iii. 14, and John viii. 68,
in connection, as if the latter had reference to
the former and was intended to declare that Je
sus was the great " I am."
But if you will look at these passages in the
light which orthodox commentators alone have
thrown upon them, yon will see that there is no
soundness in this witness to what he wishes to
prove. Exodus iii. 14, " And God said unto Moses, I
am that I am."
Now the literal meaning of the words so trans
lated is, "I will be that I will be." So it is
translated by Tindale, called the Apostle of
England, and who was among the first as he was
among the most illustrious martyrs to the Pro
testant cause in 1536. So it is translated by Le
Clerc, Prof, of Hebrew and Belles Lettres in tbe
Remonstrant College at Amsterdam, who flour
ished at the beginning of the last contury. And
Dr. Adam Clarke says " the original words lit
erally signify ' I will be what I will be.' " Any
being may say, I am that I am, for surely every
one is what he is. But God alone can say, " I
will be that I will be,',' for he alone is exempt
from influences that might make him what he
would not be.
The connection in which our Lord's words
stand, (John viii. 68,) " before Abraham was I
am," is sufficient to explain them. He said, v.
56, " Tour father Abraham rejoiced to see my
day, and he saw it and was glad." How did
that patriarch see " the day of the Son of man,"
the time when Christ commenced the redemp
tion of the world ? He could only have seen it
with a prophetic eye, as it was placed before
him in the divine promise. The Jews miscon-
strned our Saviour's words, and said, " Thou
art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
Abraham?" Jesus had not said that he had
seen Abraham, or that Abraham had seen him,
only that the patriarch had seen his day. So
he replied with emphasis, " Verily, verily, I say
unto yon, before Abraham was, / am," that is,
I, as the Messiah, the promised one, Ijwas pla

84

DISCUSSION OF THB DOCTRINE;. OF THB TljINITY.

oed before Abraham's view in prpphetie vision,
and he rejoiced in the prospect of my coming,!
though you, who call him your father, are hat?
ing and persecuting me. This interpretatipn-
of the passage agrees with the cqntext and all
the circumstances.
I am assured of the correctness of this expo
sition by high orthodox authorities on another
point. Grotius, Kuinoel, Rosenmuller, Schlen-
'suer, Le ClerCj John Pye Smith, and others, all
conCuT, as I learn from "Concessions of Trinita
rians," and as I know most of them do, in say
ing that the' word" ego eimi," should have been
rendered " I was." And in prop? that the presr
ent tense is often put for the imperfect, they ap
peal to Psalms xc. 2' ; Prov. viii. 25 ; Jer. i. 5 ;
John i. 19, ix. 8, 35, xiv. 9, xy. 27.
Grotius says, " Jesus was before Abraham in
the divine decree," and refers to John xvii. 5 ;
Luke xv. 31 ; John i. 23, ix. 8-25, xv. 27.
Beza, the colleague and successor of Calvin
in tiie Church and University of Geneva, says;
" I do not think that Christ here simply speaks
of himself as God, but as he was seen by Abra
ham with the eye of faith, namely, as a media-
tort between God and man, or God manifested in
the flesh ; for otherwise he would seem not to
have spoken to the purpose."
Dr. John Pye Smith, in his Scripture-testimo
ny! to the Messiah, says, " Some suppose that in
using the expression ' I am,' our Lord intended
a reference to the divine appellation announced
to Meses, ' I am that which I am.' But it is. to
beiremarked that the words Of that passage are
in the future tense, ' I will be that tf-hich1 1 will
be;" (Bxod. iii. 14,) and most probably'it was
not intended as a name, but as a declaration of
the certain fulfillment of all the promises of
God, especially those which related to the, de
liverance of the Israelites. There does not ap^
pear, therefore, sufficient ground to sustain the
idea of. an allusion to this." Vol. 1, page 16
But. this is not all that I have to say upon this
passage, which has been twiee or thrice quoted
by Mr. Lee, and in a manner to show that he
places great dependence upon it.
In all other places where the words ego eimi
occnr they are translated " I am he." Thgre are
two instances in this very chapter. Verse 24,
" If ye believe not that ' ego eimi' I am he, ye
shall die in your sins."' Verse 28, " When ye
have lifted, up the Son of man, then shall ye
know that I am he, and that I do nothing of
myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak
these things." -

John iv. 26, " I that speak unto thee am he,"
{ego eimi.) '
John xiii. 19, " Now I tell yon before it oomei
to, pass, that, when it come to pass, ye may be
lieve that I am he."
These are sufficient, though very maiTy .more
examples might be brought for-ward, in which
the translators of our English Bible have insert
ed the " he" after the " I am-", Not a similar
case to the one we are considering can be found
where they have omitted this addition. Why
they omitted it here is evident 1 think. They
were believers in the doctrine Mr. Lee is at
tempting to support, and thinking they saw-
here an allusion to Exod. iii. 14, they translated
the phrase more literally than they had done
elsewhere. "And now, 0= Father, glorify thou me with
thine own self, with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was." , John xrii. 6.
This text Mr. Lee evidently regards as a very
strong one in favor of the pre-ejjstence and
self-existence of Jesus Christ. But he cannot
have attended to certain peculiarities in the
original languages of the Bible.
God said to Abraham, " I have made thee the
father of many nations," wben as yet he had
hot a son. The language is not "I will m(ake
thee hereafter," but, "I have malde thee tbe
father of many nations." Now, what else could
have been, the meaning of this but that U. was
the divine intention, and would, be brought
about in the future providence of God, that
nf any nations should descend from tfyat righte
ous man. I say, therefore, in the same sense,
that Abraham was the fathdr of many nations
before he had yet a son— so Christ had the glo
ry for which he now prayed— fie' had it with the
Father before the' World was, that is, in divine
foresight and intention.
If we arrange our Lord's words in the order
in which they stand in the original Greek, we
may perhaps find some authority from ;that or
der itself, far affixing to them the sens* I pro
pose. "And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me
with thine own self, with the glory which! had
before the world was with thee." i *
The glory he prays for, was a glory.that had
mot yet been in his own possession, but was with
the Father, not only as everything that comes
to pass must, in one sense have been, i. e. in his
sfoiresight', but' Christ's glory was with the Fath
er before the, world was, or before the Christian
age commenced, in the divine intention. It was
a part of the dlvme counsell from tbe very -first,

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTKINE OF THB TRINITT.

85

thai tbe Messiah should be glorified, and that
his faithful followers should share in the divine
grace and mercy by him.
Accordingly it is said, (Eph. i. 3, 4,) "Blessed
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings,
in heavenly places in Christ, according as he
hath ehosen us in him before the foundation of
the world."
Thus also wc read, (2 Tim. i. 9,) " Who (God)
hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our .works, but according to
his own purpose and grace which was given us
in Christ Jesus, before the world began." And
our Lord represents himself as saying to the
righteous at, the day of judgment, (Matt. xxv.
34, ) " Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world."
I would therefore interpret the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, in the passage we have been
considering, (according to the Hebrew phrase
ology, and the general sense of Scripture,) as
referring to the glory that was intended for
him, or laid up in the divine, all-foreseeing
mind before the day of redemption began, or
before the world was. So that our Lord, after
having glorified the Father on the earth, and
finished the work which he had given him to do,
now requests in prayer that glory which he
knew was destined for him — the glory of being
the Saviour of the world. As yet little appear
ed to have been accomplished by his ministry.
There wore few who ventured to become his fol
lowers and embrace his religion. He was about
to be crucified. Still he felt sure Of the tri
umph' of his truth. He foresaw that his gospel
would triumph in the world ; and in the confi
dence of this faith, even in that dark hour, be
prayed that it might be even so.
To show you still further *hat this is the true
exposition of this important passage, let me ask
you, my brother, to look again into your New
Testament, and see if the glory for which Christ
prayed be not the same glory which the Apos
tles spoke of as actually received by him: And
still further, did he not pray for this glory as
the reward of a work done by him upon the
earth, and did not the Apostles speak of it as
given to him as the reward of what he had done
and suffered upon earth? And I ask, once, how
could the glory which you supposed Christ pos
sessed before he appeared on earth, or had done
any part of the word, how could that possibly
be tbe reward of a work done by him upon

earth, of his obedience and sufferings ? It seems
to me my friend can answer this but tbe same
way I should.
Let me only add, sir, in justice to our disin
terested Lord and Saviour, that the glory for
which he prayed was not personal enjoyment dr
selfish exaltation. No. As he said on a former
occasion, he came not, he lived not, he died
not to seek his own glory. His petition was,
that notwithstanding the dark clouds that seem
ed to be settling about him and his cause — his
petition was that that cause might triumph— the
gracious purposes of God— the sanctification
and redemption of the world might be crowned
with the most glorious success. He doubtless
uttered this prayer more in sympathy with the
failing hearts of his disciples than on his own
account. For he says, verse 13, " Now come I
to thee, and these things I speak in the world,
that they might have my joy fulfilled in them
selves." And in the 2!d verse he prays, " The
glory which thou hast given me I have given
them, that they may be one, even as we are one,
I in them and them in me, that they may be
made perfect in one, and that the world may
know that thou hast sent them as thou hast sent
me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me,"
I cannot but think, sir, that the exposition I
have now offered will approve itself to my
friend on the other side, when he shall have
considered more the usages of the Jewish lan
guage, and shall have compared more carefully
Scripture with Scripture on this point. Would
to God that we all of us studied the Bible much
more in the light that radiates from its own pa
ges, and much less in the shadows that are pro
jected upon its pages by our educational preju
dices and sectarian opinions.
"And, without controversy, great is the mys
tery of godliness ; God was manifest in the
flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory." 1 Tim. iii. 16.
For my part, I am unable to see the reason
why my brother Lee and Trinitarians general
ly, should put so much confidence in this text,
even allowing it to stand just as it does in our
common translation. The being here spoken bf
as God manifest in the flesh, could not have
been the High and Holy One, who is from ever
lasting to everlasting the same, without a sha
dow of change, in his very nature exalted, glo
rious beyond our utmost thought, invisible,
whom no eye hath seen or can see, we cannot
consistently suppose it to be the supreme God

86

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

who is here spoken of in this passage, for here
we read that he was manifest in flesh, that he
had a person which mortal eyes could look up
on : nay, more, that he was received up into
glory, that is, underwent a change from a lower
to a higher state of glory ; nay, further Still,
that he who is all perfect was justified.
Now this cannot be truly said of the supreme
deity, unless we may contradict some of the
plainest declarations of Scripture respecting
him. And as we have seen that the title "God," is
frequently bestowed upon the prophets, angels,
and messengers of the Most High, we may infer
that it must be some such one who is here spo
ken of, and can have little doubt that it was Je
sus Christ, God's most illustrious messenger-
nay, his dearly beloved Son, in whom, as in an
express image of himself, the heavenly Father
hath more clearly .manifested himself to the
world than by any other prophet or angel.
So far as my argument against the proposi
tion before us is concerned, I should be willing
to leave this text with the comment I have now
made upon it. But as so much reliance is put
upon this passage, as if it were one of the cor
ner stones of the whole edifice of orthodoxy, I
feel that it is my duty still further to show how
this stone has been crumbled in pieces, or at
least so far broken that even many stout de
fenders of the Trinity do not place much de
pendence upon it.
So long ago as Grotius, who flourished in the
early days of the Protestant Reformation, the
common reading of the original of this text
was called in question by him and other Bibli
cal scholars ; and it was more than intimated
by them, that instead of " God" was manifest in
the flesh, the real original required us to read
either " which was," or " he who was manifest
ed in the flesh ;" they who understand Greek
know how easily the abbreviations of the words
that mean " God," " which" and " who" might
be mistaken for each other.
Less than a century afterwards, Sir Isaac
Newton, "whose piety swelled responsive to
his knowledge," and who was as great a theo
logian almost as he was astronomer. He
wrote a Tract, in which he showed that the
passage ought to have been translated " Great
is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest
ed in the flesh " ; that having been the reading
, in all the churches for, the first four or five hun
dred years, and of the authors of all the ancient
versions, Jerome as well as the rest.

Bishop Marsh, one of the most illustrious
biblical scholars that ever wore a mitre in the
English Episcopal Church,' says in his Notes to
Michaelis's Introduction, Vol. H. p. 84, that the
common . reading (God) "is not found a prima
manu, in a single ancient manuscript in uncial
letters, nor in a single ancient version except
the Arabic, which is of very doubtful authori
ty." Concessions p. 514.
Dr. John Pye Smith, the savor of whose or
thodoxy has been for the last fifty years even
more redolent than that of his learning, con
fesses evidently with much reluctance, " that
tflo reasons in favor of reading (he who) are so
weighty as to render the . whole caBe very per
plexing, and, he apprehends incapable of being
determined so as to dissipate all the doubts of a
conscientious inquirer. Concessions p. 513 —
Script. Test. Vol. HI. 322.
And Dr. Adam Clarke, the great and certain
ly very learned Methodist Commentator, who
never yields any thing that he can with any
fairness hold on to as a proof of the deity of
Christ, acknowledges that he is " perplexed by
various readings of the clause ' God was mani
fest in the flesh,' for instead of God several
manuscripts, versions and fathers have who or
which." Commentary in Loc.
Many more witnesses against the common
reading might be. brought forward, but these, I
trust, will be enough to show that my brother
Lee, and other Trinitarians, who rely much
upon this passage, are leaning upon a broken
reed. The very context of this passage, it seems to
me, plainly intimates that some other doctrine,
than that usually deduced from it, was in the
mind of the writer. He was earnestly exhort
ing Timothy, a young minister of the Gospel,
to seek after and maintain in himself, and do all
in his power to promote in others, the virtues
and graces of those, who belong to the Church
of the living God. How natural that his thoughts
should turn, and that ho should wish to fasten
the thoughts of his beloved son, upon the bright
est pattern of a god-like man, which the world
had then, or has since, ever beheld ; in whom
was first made manifest in all perfection the
spirit of true holiness, the spirit of God in the
lire of man. That such purity, holiness, stead
fastness in virtue under every temptation, such
fearlessness, moral courage, self-sacrifice', were
possible in man, had never before been con
ceived. It was the mystery of god-likeness
never until now revealed— revealed in him,

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

87

Jesus of Nazareth, "who was manifest in the
flesh, was justified in the spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory."
I do not expect my opponent in this discus
sion, nor a great maoy of my auditors, will
accept at once this explanation of this famous
passage. But I beg of them to give it due con
sideration before they fling It away from their
minds. It is an explanation, to which they may
find some approximation in a very popular or
thodox book, " The Corner Stone," by Jacob
Abbott, pp. 12, 13. " He (God) brings out the
purity, and spotlessness, and moral glory of the
Divinity, through the workings of a human mind,
called into existence for t^js purpose, and sta
tioned in a most conspicuous attitude among
men. * * « * >jhe moral perfections of
Divinity show themselves to us in the only way
by which, so far as we can see, it is possible di
rectly to show them, by coming out in action,
in the very field of human duty, by a mysteri
ous union with a human intellect and human
powers. It is God manifest in the flesh ; the
visible image of an all pervading Deity — him
self forever invisible.
SEVENTH EVENING— MARCH 14.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SFEECn.
' I resume the direct argument.
2. Is the Holy Ghost called an attribute of
God ? The subject will be beset with equal
difficulties, and Shrouded in equal. mystery.
(I.) It suggestsjthe question, what, or which
attribute of Jehovah is the Holy Ghost?
The attributes of God are known only as
God has revealed himself. To say that the
Holy Ghost is an attribute of God, is to say
that it is one of the known attributes. What
is it? Is it his eternity. Certainly not for that is
a mere fact and quality which pertains to all
the attributes of God.
Is it his omnipotence or power ? It cannot
be. for it is more than power ; The Holy Ghost
develops intelligence and volition, neither of
which belong to power as a distinct attribute
" The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barna
bas and Saul." Acts. xiii. 2.
" It seemed good to the Holy G'host." Acts
xv. 28.
* Moreover, power has no existence only as it
resides in an operative agent. To say,' there
fore, that the Holy Ghost is the power of God,

as an attribute, is to say that it is God himself.
Is it his omnipresence ?
Surely not. This is a mere quality of the
divine essence, or mode of the divine existence.
The intelligence, will, and personal actions of
the Holy Ghost cannot be referred to the mere
quality of existing every where.
Is it his omniscience or knowledge? The
Holy Ghost exerts a power that does not be
long to mere knowledge.
The Spirit transported the prophet. Eze. iii.
13. " Then the spirit took me up, and I heard
behind me a voice of a great rushing, saying,
Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his
place." Is it his immutability — Surely not. This
will not only, not be pretended, but it is im
possible that immutability, as a distinct attrib
ute, should be capable of such manifestations
and actions as are attributed to the Holy Ghost.
Immutability is a quality that pertains to all
the other attributes, and pervades the divine
nature. Is it said that it is the attribute of Justice ?
It cannot be, for it administers grace and com
fort, entirely beyond the ministrations of pure
justice. Is it Goodness, love, or mercy? Surely
not. The Spirit is light and power, and ex.
erts physical and moral energy as well as to
communicate goedr.ess grace and love.
The Spirit, or Holy Ghost, then, is no one
attribute of God.
3. Is there any thing else that you can call
the Holy Ghost, which will designate him as
some thing less than divinity itself?
. Is it an emanation from God. It cannot be.
This would prove that it is God himself, or else
that God is divisible and that parts become
detached and fly off.
Is it the influence of God ? No, for influ
ence is but another word for power, and like
power, cannot exist only as it resides in, and
is exerted by the agent to which it belongs.
The influence of God is God himself, exerting
his own power ? jnst as a thought is the mind
thinking. Is it the exerted energy of God ? No, for
the exerted energy of God, is but another word
for the influence or power of God, and can be
nothiDg more nor less than God acting.

88

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

There can then be no account given of the
Holy Ghost, if the Trinitarian view be denied ?
I have a few incidental points to notice in
my remarks this evening before continuing the
direct arguments.
The first is his challenge, or offer to discuss
with me or any other clergyman in Syracuse,
the origin, authority, and inspiration of the
Scriptures. Of course, he denies' what he 'supposes to be
the received opinion of Trinitarians concerning
their origin, authority and inspiration, how
else coijld he discuss these points With me ?
I will only add, that though I am not dis
posed to arrest the present discussion, to con
tract for another, yet if he shall call upon me
for such a discussion at a future convenient
time, I will try to furnish him with an oppo
nent. Another matter to which I wish to call the
attention of the audience, is his attempted car
icature of my method of quoting Scripture.
It was this : — He cited the following expres
sions, as illustrating my method of quoting
Scripture. "Judas went and hanged himself;" "Go
thou and do likewise ;" " That thou doest, do
quickly." I appeal to the audience in proof that I have
made no quotations which can justify any such
representation. I challenge Mr. May to produce one case
from all my quotations on which he could sup
pose he had any ground for that representation.
As a man, a gentleman, and a Christian, I
place myself upon a level above that and all
that may be like it.
Mr. May here rose and said — May I explain
just now ? I did not say that these quotations
illustrated Mr. Lee's method of quoting Scrip
ture. I said I was reminded of this criticism
by some of his quotations. But you will re
member Sir, that I said at the time, that 1 was
almost ashamed of it. And I was ashamed of
it before it passed my lips, i I was ashamed of
it as soon as it was out of my mouth. And I
am ashamed of it now, Sir. And if it is
deemed necessary I will beg Mr. Lee's pardon.
Oh said Mr. Lee pleasantly, that is abundant
ly sufficient. I am perfectly satisfied-

Mr. May has made one reply in substanee,
to me on several points. It has been repeated
with little variations,. in reply to my argument
founded upon- the names and titles applied to
Christ, in reply to my argument drawn from
the attributes of Christ, and lastly In reply
to my argument on the two natures. Parts of
it have been thrown out in answer to others
of my arguments.
The substance of the whole is, Christ was a
man, and therefore was not God. This has
been several limes explained by me, bnt it shall
'now receive a thorough review, and probably
a final one, so far as I am concerned.
I will draw outhis several points even more
distinct than he made them, that the audience
may see that I meet them.
I will classify his several points.
I. He declaimed over the absurdity of my
views st-nd treated them as self-contradiet6ry
and impossible.
This is a departure from the established rules
of Controversy.
It is mere assertion. There is no more con
tradiction in saying that Christ , was God and
man, than there is in saying. that a man is both
matter and spirit, material and immaterial, vis
ible and invisible. ¦
To prove the thing a contradiction is im
possible, and mere assertions are not to be ta
ken as proof in controversy.
IT. He affirmed that it involved the destruc
tion of the balance of power in the Godhead.
If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal,
and the Son took human nature, he must then
be more than equal to either the Father or the
Holy Ghost.
1. Humanity can add nothing to divinity ;
to any one attribute ef divinity. On this
ground alone the objection must fall.
2. As all three are equally, infinite, as the
Son or Logos was infinite before becoming in
carnate, to say, as my friend does, that human
ity added to it, is to say that it made it more
than infinite. He must then give up his objec-
iion, or admit that a being can be more than
infinite — that there is a degree and a measure
beyond infinity.
III. It was urged that my views destroy th$
benevolence of the plan of redemption.
It was asked where was the love 'of God,, in

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

89

the first, second or third person of the Trinity ?
The answer is, the love was the love of God ;
it was in all three, but particularly is it de
clared of the Father and the Son.
" For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believcth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." John iii. 16.
" I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless I
live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me : and
the life which I now live in the fle3h, I live by
the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me." Gal. ii. 20.
" And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved
ns, and hath given himself fpr ns, an offering
and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling sa
vour." Eph. v. 2.
The love of the Father and the Son are
here declared. But deny the atonement, as my
friend does, and the love of the Father is turn
ed into cruelty, in giving Christ to die, when
there was no necessity for it. And Christ no
more loved us and gave himself for us, than
Paul or Peter did.
My friend asks where the love was. I an
swer : " Here the whole Deity is known —
Nor dares a creature guess,
Which of the glories brightest shone,
The justice or the grace :''
IV. It was affirmed that the doctrine of the
two natures of Christ, involves the absurdity
of Christ's having two minds. The fact must
follow that he had a human mind and a divine
mine ; but that only amounts to the fact of his
two natures, the questions in debate. To be
God and man, is to have a divine and human
mind, but in no other sense does it suppose two
msnds in Christ, This makes the objection
standN thus. Christ did not possess two natures,
because it would involve the absurdity,©!' hav
ing two natures. Or Christ cannot have pos
sessed two minds, divine, and humaa, because
it would involve the absurdity of having two
minds. But this disproves nothing.
V. It was affirmed that the two natures of
Christ, involves the absurdity of two natures
in one essence.
This is a mere erroneous statement. There
is at least a divine and human essence. We
7

do not affirm that Christ as divine and human
was but one essence.
VI. It was affirmed that my view impeaches
the veracity of Christ. I will quote the proof.
" Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he not only had broken the sab
bath, but said also, that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God. Then answer
ed Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The Son can do nothing of him
self, but what heseeth the Father do : for what
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the
Son likewise. I can of mine own self do noth
ing" : as I hear, I judge : and my judgment is
just ; because I seek not mine own will, but
the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John v. 18, 19, 30.
" Belie vest thon not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me ? The words that I
speak unto you I speak not of myself : but the
Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the
works. Believe me that I am iu the Father,
and the Father in me : or else believe me for
the very works' sake." John xiv. 10, 11.
These texts present the strong ground of the
objection. Let us now examine the language of these
texts. ,
1, I will not attempt to explain away the
obvious sense of the language, as Mr. Maj
does when a text appears against him. I un
derstand the language in its most natural sense
2. There are two points asserted in the lan
guage of Christ.
One is that he can do nothing of himself,
that the Father that dwelleth in him doeth the
works. The second point is, his union and equality
with ilie Father. This is just as clearly and
positively stated as the other*
The Jews accused him of making himself
equal with God. On what did they ground
this charge.
On these words alone.
'¦ But Jesus answered them, My Father work
eth hitherto, and I work." Verse 17.
Now the question is.didhe say anything to put
a different construction upon these words ? He
explained the manner, but retracted nothing.
" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,"
is the ground of the charge. The defence is,

90

DISCUSSION OF THB DOCTRNIE > OF THE TRINITY.

" The Son can do nothing of himselfvbut what
he seeth the Father do : for whatsoever be
doeth, these also doeth the Son."
There' is in the defense even' more to produce
an impression of equality than there was in the
word's first uttered. He even goes much fur
ther and declares :
" Marvel hot at this : for th^ hour is coming
in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice. And shall come forth i they
that have done good unto the resurrection of
life ; and they that have done evil unto the
resurrection of damnation.''
The two points being settled that Christ as
serted that he could do nothing of himself, and
that he was in union with and equal to the
Father ; I have only to reconcile these two
truths, the one with the other. '
3. The explanation is, such is the union be
tween him and the Father, that he can do noth
ing independently or separate from the Father.
His whole work in this world was an official
work as Messiah, to which he was appointed
by the Father, and of course he did nothing
without the Father. How could he do any
thing without the Father, or of himself, when
ht affirms that the Father sent him and that
he is in the Father and the Father in him ?
Bttch is the union that he eOuld Dot act inde
pendently of the Father, for his divine nature
exists with the Father in the unity of the
Godhead. The fact that the Father sent him as Mes
siah, to do an official work, is no proof that he,
did not exist with the Holy Ghostih the unity
of the Godhead.
If he could have done any thing of himself,
that is without : the concurrence or ap
pointment of the Father, it would prove the
doctrine of the Trinity false., How terribly
at fault is my friend's- logic,' when he argues
that'Chrisb was not God in unity of the God
head, because he could do nothing of himself,
or independently of the Father, whereas, if he
could do any thing without the Father, the
unity of the GodheacT-would be broken*
Thus do I make these texts wholly true, I
have no occasion to explain away any part of
the sense, as my friend is compelled to do. I
make it literally true that Christ could donoth-
ing of himself, but only act- in union with the

Father, for he was " in the Father and the
Father in him ;" and thus do I save my Lord
from the terrible impeachment which my friend
has brought against him, upon the supposition
that he was anything more than a man*
VII. It was affirmed that my view involves
deception on the part of Christ. This ; was
mainly based upon one text.1 ¦
But of that : day ,and that hour , knoweth no
man, no, not theiangels which are in. heaven,
neither : the Son, but [the -, Fathery' Mark
xiii. 32. ,
It is clear that my opponent relies more upon
this te.\t; than any other, from; the frequency
of his quoting it, and the earnestness; with
which hechas urged it. ¦ Let us examine it.
1. I might adopt his metbpd^and dispute the
genuineness of the clause, *'npr .the Son.'; The
ground fpr this is, it is not found in the paral
lel texts in Matt. , or .Luke, where the , same
words are intended to be recprdedby two other
writers,, and Ambrose says it was wanting in
this text in some Greek copies iq his time.
But I do not, I will not urge this ; I make,, no
attack on the genuineness of the text.
2. I might dispose of it by a criticism, after
the fashion of my friend, by contending that
the verb knoweth, is sometilries nsed in the
sense of to make known, as in 1 Cor. ii : 2.
" For I determined not to know any thing
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him cruci
fied." This would make the text assert that no
man, nor angel, northe Son would make known
that day. but the Father only would make that
known. But I will not even adopt this meth
od for whieh I might quote some of the best
Greek scholars.
3. I will understand the text to mean just
what it says'; and abide its most obvious sense.
I explain it in the light of the doctrine of
the two natures of Christ. My opponent
charged upon that doctrine, this Consequence;
that it implied that Christ had' two minds.
This is just the thing. • He had a human mind;
and a divine mind. Now as that human'mind
could be sorrowful and suffer without involving
the divine mind in suffering, so the human
mind could be ignorant of some things, without
involving the divine mind in ignorance. The
human mind being finite, like all other created

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE' OF THE1 TRINITY.

91

¦minds, could not know all that the divine mind
Tcnew, which- was infinite.
Jesus Christ acting in his official capacity
as the Messiah, was our prophet, and as a
prophet he acted through his human nature,
which was anointed and filled with the Holy
Ghost, for the work of a prophet. Just those
; things were communicated to the human na
ture, as our prophet, which it was the will of
the Fatber should' be re-created to the world,
but the precise day and hour when Jerusalem
was to be destroyed, or when this world shall
end, God has never seen fit to make known.
As a prophet therefore, Christ did not know,
because the revelations of divinity to him as
prophet, did not include that, as it was not
among the things ever to be revealed.
Christ was exercising his prophetic office
aud.gifts as peculiar to his official appointment,
when the question was asked. He was fore
telling what was to come to pass, and with an
eye on the prophetic gift, he was exercising,
the inquiry was made, and it included one item
never to be made known to men, viz : when
the world should end, and his humanity anoint
ed to the prophetic office, did not know.
But did he not deceive the people? It is
eharged that he did. This is unfounded for
three reasons.
I. He answered the real question' asked."
" Tell us, whenshall thesethings be ?" Verse 4.
2. The answer was strictly true. It was
not only what had not been committed to the
man Christ Jesus, as the world's prophet, but
what the council ot God had determined should
not be made known. It is yet hid in the eter
nal mind.
3. He answered the question in the same
¦capacity in which those who asked it' contem
plated him. They did not ask him as God,
their dark minds did not yet contemplate him
as God, they were full of errors, and not only
did not understand the prophets, but failed to
comprehend his plainest instructions.
"For he taught his disciples, and said unto
them, The Son of man is delivered into the
hands of men, and they shall kill him ; and af
ter that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
But they understood not that saying, and were
afraid to ask hhm" Mark ix. 31, 32.
Did he deceive them?

" Then he took unto him the twelve, and said
unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and
all things that are written by the prophets con
cerning the Son of mah shall be accomplised.
For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles,
and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated,
and spitted on : And1 they shall scourge, hint,
and put him to death : and the third day he
shall rise again. And they understood none Of
¦thesethings: and this saying was hid from
them, neither knew they the things whichwere
spoken." Luke xviii. 31-34.
Was it a deception to hide these- things from
them? Listen to his rebuke of their ignorance and
unbelief long after this, even after his resurrec
tion. Then he said unto them, 0 fools, and slow
of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered
these things, and to enter into his glory ? And
beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex
pounded unto them in all the scriptures the
things concerning himself." Luke xxiv. 25-27.
Were they all this ^me deceived by him ?
They must have been upon the principle upon
which my brother charges him with deception:
They did not, and probably at this time, they
Could not comprehend the matter of the divine
and human natures, and had the Evangelists
written their gospels at this time, no reliance
could have been placed upon them. But after
wards, and before they wrote, they were enlight
ened with- the spirit of inspiration.
After his resurrection it is said :
"Then opened he their understanding, that
they might understand the scriptures." Luke
xxiv. 45.

Again he made them this promise :
"But tbe Comforter, which is the Holy
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have
said unto you." John xiv. 26.
This covers the whole ground of the inspir
ation of the apostles, and proves that though '
they did nbt understand the teachings of Christ
at the time, what he-taught was brought back
to their recollection, and the sense he taught
was revealed to their understandings by the
Holy Ghost

92

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Tjhere was then no deception, for they asked
a question, and he answered the question they
asked, and his answer was the true one. They
asked him as a prophet, probably without any
reference to or conception of his divine nature,
and he answered them in perfect accordance
with their conceptions of him and the question
they asked, which precludes the possibility of
deception. The answer made no false impres
sion on their minds, all that can be pretended
is that it left them ignorant of many important
things not comprehended in the question, and
if this constitutes deception, he deceived them
and kept them deceived during the whole peri
od of his ministry,
This view shows the absurdity of his illus
tration borrowed from Newton and others.
Suppose Newton to have been the world's ap
pointed astronomer, as; Christ was the world's
appointed prophet, and the, people had no other
conception of him but as an astronomer, and
they had asked him an astronomical question,
and he had answered it just in accordance with
the fact, would he have. deceived them because
he did not tell them that there was more of him
than they saw, that he Bad in what ; they saw
of him, a, soul,, a spiritual essence which they
could not see and comprehend ? Surely not.
No more then did Christ deceive, when he
answered, because, he did not.fell them at. that
time, that he was God and knew all things as
God. VIII. It was insisted that Christ disclaimed
divine attributes.. The text just examined was
relied upon to, prove this, that he disclaimed
omniscience. tp-It had no reference to the sub
ject. It was an answer to a question, and the;
question itself did not comprehend the. fact of
his divinity or of his omniscience but was ad
dressed to him as a prophet,, and so. answered.
Xhe texts ,in .which. Christ affirmed . he could
do nothing of himself, was relied upon to prove
that he disclaimed divine attributes, , This has
bv'-n answered under tbe head of the supposed
impeachment of his veracity. He could! do
nothing, of himself, because, As the Father was
in h.m so was he in the Fafher. It wasjshown
thayf he could dot/any thing without the Fath
er, it would destroy the unity of the Godhead
for which I contend, j /; , , ,.
IX. It was urged 'that the doctrine; of the

two natures of Christ detracts from his piety
especially his submission and humility. Direct
ly the reverse is the feict, as I wi" show you
from a single, quotation.
," Let this mind be in you, which was also
in Christ Jesus : Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God : But made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form Of a servant, and was
made in the likeness, of men : And being
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name which
is above every name :" Phil, ii. 5-9.
If Christ was but a man, as my friend affirms,
never was humanity so highly rewarded for the
same amount of service.
Paul and Peter labored lqnger and suffered
more upon my friends theory.
Christ never got below the level of human
nature. Wherein did he humble himself more
than Paul or Peter if he was only a man ?
Christ labored about three-years, Paul and
Peter about forty. Christ was crucified- and
died the same day. Peter was crucified head
downwards. Christ was exalted above all principalities
and powers, and received a name that 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"
Phil. ii. 10, 11. , ,
All this for three years labor, and one death •¦
while Paul and Peter for forty years labor and '
one death each, hoped only to be admitted to-
the presence pf Christ to see his glory, and'
join ;with others to sing .his < praise. Such is
the absurdity; of my friend's theory; it makest
the piety, submission, benevolence and self-
denial of Christ turn pale before Paul and
Peter,' he suffering and doing infinitely less
than they, and being exalted infinitely higher
than they. ,
But admit, as my doctrine affirms, !tb*t he'
had glory with the 'Father before the world '
was, and that he left it and -came to earth, and
that his sufferings were of a redeeming charac-

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TKINITT.

ter, and that he suffered for all men, and snf-, believe the expositions I give to be more near
fered more than any mere human being ever ly correct than any others would be ?
did, ever will, or ever can suffer, and the whole
•is plain, and the crowning of him by the Fath

er, and the rapturous songs of redeemed mil
lions that throw their living echo forever around
bis throne, are but the reward of his redeeming
work, and triumph over sin, death and hell.
" Alone the dreadful race he ran,
Alone the wine-press trod ;
He dies and suffers as a man,
He rises as a God.
He rises, who mankind has bought,
With grief and pain extreme :
'Twas great to speak the world from nonght;
'Twas greater to redeem."
I have one text more.
¦" For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your
sakes he became poor, that ye through his pov
erty might be rich." 2 Cor. viii. 9.
X. It was urged that my theory supposes
that many texts do not mean what they say.
This must be the stone of Proverbs, xxvi.
27. " Whoso diggeth a.pit shall fall therein ;
smd he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon
him." I take it for granted that every text means
wh at it says, and have in this whole discussion.
I have not attempted to explain away a single
text. But my friend has done but little else
but to labor to show that the texts do not mean
¦what they say. Take two texts as an example.
" Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John
viii. 58.
" And now, 0 Father, glprify thou me with
thine own self, with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was." John xvii.
Tou will all remember the labored effort he
made to prove that these passages do not mean
what they say. MR. MAT'S FIRST SPEECH.
Mr. Lee has, three or four times during our
discussion, charged me with explaining away
passages of Scripture that obviously stood, op
posed to the position I am endeavoring to main

tain. , I ask him, sir, if .he, means to intimate
that I do this in any unfair w*y- * demand ol

Mr. Lee — No more than you charge me with
unfairness when you allege that I have not ex
plained a passage properly.
Mr. chairman, our methods and principles of
interpretation are widely different. Which is
the better of the two, you and our auditors must
judge for yourselves. The style o' our Sacred
Scriptures is eminently figurative. We must
explain a great many passages one way or an
other. Our Saviour calls himself at one time a
"shepherd," at another " the Lamb," and then
again, " the door oi the sheepfold." Now he
cannot be all three, nor either one, literally.
Which is he ? and in what sense is he that ? So,
too, he calls himself the " true vine," and then,
" the rock," and again, " the bread that came
down from heaven." Now, sir, does not Mr.
Lee explain away the literal meaning of such
expressions as much as I do ? and if his exposi
tion differs from mine, who shall say which is
the better of the two ?
In answer to my argument, that our Saviour's
disclaimer of divine attributes is a complete
overthrow ot all the texts he piled up in proof,
that Christ did possess them, Mr. Lee said just
now., that Jesus answered those questions in the
character in which he was contemplated by
those who addressed him ; and that was as a
prophet and not as a divine being. Sir, does
te mean that Christ cam's into the world to
teach men only what he might be called to teach
them by their leading questions ? and to speak
and act towards them only in the character
which they might affix to him ? Did he not
come to declare to them truths which would
make them wise unto salvation? Now, my
brother believes that the doctrine of the deity '
of Christ, aye, of the trinity of the Godhead,is
the fundamental one. How then can he account'
for it, that Jesus not only failed to teach that,
but that he should say what was adapted to lead-
his hearers to believe the opposite ? Jesus said
jn so many words, " I can of mine own self do
nothing ;" "All power is given to me by my
Father ;" " Of that day and that hour I know
not;" "Why callest thou me good," &c- Sir,
what can we understand from, all this but that
he was not the Almighty, the omniscient God 1 :
But I turn to the subject of his main argument..
last evening.
- The doctrine of two natures in Christ is deem
ed by Mr. Lee, and all Trinitarians, so indispen-

fcimto say whether, be doubts that I sincerely j sable to the support of their system— and it

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

seems- to me so fatal to their system that we
must both of us be excused, for dwelling upon
it, longer. In one sense, sir, all Unitarians be
lieve, and ever have believed, in the Divine .na
ture of Christ. That is, we believe his mission
was divine— that he spoke and acted by divine
authority— that he possessed a god-like temper
and god-like powers^-that the' Father was ' with
him and in him ; in this sense, sir; we all believe
the divinity of Christ, or his divine nature.
That we believe in his human nature, my
friend Lee does not doubt.; We believe, or rath
er let me. say, I believe that t Jesus of Nazareth
was a man, the'son of a man and a woman, that
he had the physical conformation and bodily
members of a man ; that he had the feelings and
affections, the appetites and passions, the wants
and infirmities of a man. I believe thathe was
tempted in all respects as othecmen are tempt
ed'; but, I believe that all the lower parts of his
nature were so aubjected,ithe human was so sub
ordinated to the divine, in, aim, that he did not
yield to his temptations ; sin had no dominion
over him ; he: cast its allurements behind him,
or trode them under his feet. I believe the Ho
ly, Spirit, which Strives with all of us to will
and to do of GDd's good pleasure, was triumph
ant imhim over every tendency to evil ; it was
enthroned in his; soul. God dwelt in him, just
asie promises us all, that if we will keep his
words, the. Father and himself will come and
make their abode with us., He was atone with
God, as, he WDuld have us atone With himself
and the Father. I believe that Jesus to as a per
fect man — the only perfect one who ever lived ;
not, I hope, the only perfect one that ever will
live, for the high calliug of God to us all, is to
beeome " holy as Christ was holy in all manner
of-yconversation." That call Would not have
been, made to us, if there were no power in us
to1 hear, and obey it. And I trust, when the din
and jargon of unintelligible theologies shall be
hushed, and the voice of God speaking through
Christ shall be permitted to come to the ears
and hearts ef men, I trust there will be many
wborwill gladly hear the gospel call, and be
come beloved sons of God. '-'-'
,Bat I am getting away from the subject im
mediately before us this evening-rthe two na
tures of Christ. Ibave told you, Bir, and my
beothep Lee, what my belief is j now may I ask
him to answer a few questions that I may, if
possible,! understand his doctrine, and not do it
injustice in my reply. I shall nofc-be as peremp
tory with him as he was with me the other even

ing ; butif rhe will answer .my questions, Iithink;
wo shall .come to a better jundeii'Sitstading. of the
points at issue. , . .
Do you, my friend, when you speak pf the
hu,man nature of Christ, comprehend ,ui,vqur
idea the material' body of Jesus of Nazarefh—
the body that in infancy was cradled in the arms
of Maryland' in it's maturity was stretched up
on the cross; and then laid in the tomb ?
Mr. Lee — I do ; in, the i same sense, tfa&t the
body of my friend ther^. Elder PSalmer, is the
same body that ,was bprn, pf,jhjs jmpther. f j
Mr. May — I understood you tp say, the other
evening, t,hat the Hpjy Ghost conceived the.hu-
man nature of Jesus. Do yo.u retain that
opinion?
' Mr. Lee — That was 'not my position. I be
lieve that Mary conceived the child and hot the
Holy Ghost. ',,-,!
Mr. May — If you do,,,then what,, was the,,pffice
performed, by .the .Virgin Mary? Jn what sense
was she. the mother of. Jesus?.
Mr. Lee — The same office that is performed by
any other mother.
Mr. May — if you believe that Mary conceived
the body, then let me ask what part the Holy
Ghost performed in the conception or'the Son?
, Mr. Lee — It supplied- the place of a 'human
father'1 Mr- May — Your creed says Christ was begot
ten by the Father and conceived hy the Holy
Ghost. At the conception of the body of the ,
human child, was the whple second person, of"
the Trinity conceivedln t^at child instead of
his soul, or in addition to his soul?
Mr. Lee— I.never affirmed that she, conceived
the Divine nature. My view is, the conception
Was of entire humanity, body, soul and spirit,.
if you make such a distinction.
Mr. May — Let me ask, if you believe the hu
man body arid soul of the man Christ Jesus are
still existing in an inseparable union with the
second person ot the Trinity, as I understood
the creed of the Episcopal Church to declare j
or do you believe that they are now existing
apart from the Godhead, or that they were an
nihilated at the moment of Christ's ascention T
Mr. Lee — They exist in union now as they did
on earth, or as our bodies shall exist in heaven
When they shall be raised and glorified.
Mr. May — If Christ was abeing having a hu
man body, and the second person of the Trinity
(whieh, according to your proposition, compris^
edthe whole Godhead,) rbr his soul; then how
do you escape the conclusion that it was the

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE- TRINITT.

96

Godhead that suffered the anguish in Gethsem
ane, and the mortal agony, of the cross, and so
punished himself for the sins of men ?
Mr Lee — I do not say he had the Godhead for
his soul. But that a human body arid soul was
united to the, Divinity. Perfectdivinity cannot
suffer, Suffering implies imperfection.
Mr. May — Your ideas are beyond my compre
hension. •Mr. Lee replied— That is not my fault.
Mr. May — If, however, you believe that Jesus
Christ possessed a human soul, and it was that
alone which suffered in the dissolution that took
place on the cross, then how do you find in the
death of Christ an infinite satisfaction or atone
ment for the sins of mankind ?
Mr. Lee — The union of the' humanity with the
Divinity, gave it its value.
Mr. May — Once more, if I have understood
what you have said in the course of our discus
sion, what is stated in the creed of your church
and much more plainly stated in the creeds of
the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, then
Christ was begotten by the Father and conceiv
ed by the Holy Ghost : that is to say, he was
the Son of both, the first person being his fath
er, the third person his mother, (for that is the
import of the word conceived,) what then am I
to understand by your saying, that the Holy
Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Sou :
that is to say, that the mother proceeded, in
part, from her offspring ?
Mr. Lee — I cannot get at the point of your
question, it is so complicated in its statement.
Mr. May then re-stated and Mr. Lee said — I am
not responsible for the creeds, nor am I bound
to defend them. They are not up for discus
sion. Mr. May said— But you know that I wanted
to discuss the creeds at the first.
Mr. Lee replied— Then why did you not con
sent to discuBs the seeond and fourth articles of
my creed, after proposing them yourself?
Mr. May — Because you was anxious to have
the^question as explicit as possible, and I yield
ed to your judgment.
Mr. Lee — You should have.known better than
to trust such a man as I am.
, M. Again, if the Father begot the Son, and the
Holy Ghost conceived him in the womb of the
Virgin Mary, then may I ask what the cresds
mean where they gay that the Son " took upon
himself man's nature " ? Can language spealS
of any thing more passive than a being who. is
begotten by one person and conceived by an

other person ? And yet to a being so described*,
you and your creeds attribute the activity of
coming down from Heaven and incarnating
himself. There certainly seems to me . to be
inconsistency and contradiction in these state
ments somewhere. Will you show me, if there
be not any,?
L. You misunderstand the creed apd the
difficulty grows out of your misapprehension. ¦
Mr. May said — If Chriit was begotten by the
Holy Ghost then in what sense was he the Son
of God?
Mr. Lee answered — In what sense is any
Christian, a Child of Grace a Son of God who
is begotten by the Holy Ghost ?
Lastly, Do you believe that on the day when
Jesus was bom, he was already the Christ, the
dearly beloved Son of God, the Second person
sf the Trinity, possessed of all the attributes of
God ? If not, when did he become all this ?
L. He was the prospective Christ, but was pot
yet anointed as the word Christ signifies anoint*
ted. The divinity was there when he was born,
M. If you believe he wasborn God all mighty,
all wise and all good, then please tell me, how
he could have increased in wisdom and in favor
with God as Luke (Chap. ii.62)tellB'U8he did?
And what is meant by the descent of the Holy
Spirit upon him at his baptism ?
L. That relates to his humanity exclusively.
In accordance with my friend's system, : of
doctrines, it seems to be impossible to answer
these questions in either way without contra
dicting one or another part of the system, and
showing how unstable it is.
I wish now to occupy what time remainB in
examining a few more passages quoted by Mr.
Lee in support of his doctrine of the two na
tures of Christ, and one or two assumptions
made by him in the course of his argument.
After what I have said, in explanation of
several kindred passages, I need not spend
much time upon the 16 John 28, 29, verses, " I
came forth from. the Father, and an. come into
the world ; again I leave the world, and go to
the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo;
now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no
proverb. My friend is misled as to the true meaning of
this passage, by not attending to the particular
foree and genuine sense of words as they are
ugedan Scripture. To "come into th%world" as
here used does not signify to come from any \
previous or prior state of existence, bufr'itsig-
nifles to -receive a commission from God, to

96

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

enter upon it, or appear amongst men in his
name. The term world here is kosmos, which
Sometimes means the material fabric of the
earth and sometimes means very much the same
that aion means, that is, men united in society.
To come into the world therefore is to mix
amongst men, or rather to commence a course
of conduct, or an office in society, and enter
upon a scene of public action.
That this is the true sense of these words in
the passage we are considering, I think will be
made very apparent to you by some examples.
Thus our Lord says to Pilate, John xviii. 37,
" To this end was I born, and for this cause
came I into the world that I might bear witness
to the truth." Here Jesus refers in the first
place to his birth, implying that he was a man,
and afterwards speaks of his divine commission,
he " came into the world to bear witness to the
truth." Mark ii. 17, " I came not to call the
righteous but sinners to repentance." John
viii. 47, " for I came not to judge the world but
to save." In like manner 1 John iv. 1, " many
false prophets are gone out into the world '
and 2 John verse 7, " many deceivers are en
tered into the world." No one of course ever
imagined that these false teachers pre-existed
in any former state, and yet a similar mode of
speaking of them is used, to that which we are
considering in reference to Christ. They are
said to have gone out or entered into the world
when they commenced their course of teaching
whatever they may' have been. And in a cor
responding meaning of the opposite form of
expression, our Lord the best and most excel
lent of all teachers was said to oome into the
world, when he entered upon his mission to in
struct and save mankind.
But there is a pasasge which I am still more
desirous you should consider, as it will satisfy
you I think that I have given the true exposi
tion of the passage Mr. Lee pressed upon us as
one of his proofs of the pre-exiBtence of Christ.
It is the xvii. 18 of John, where our Saviour is
praying- to his Father for his disciples, he says
" As thou haBt sent me into the world, even so
have I also sent them into the world." Here
Christ himself declares that his apostles arc
sent into the world in the same manner " as the
Father sent him into the world."
These remarks and references abundantly
sustain m* in giving you the following para
phrase of this passage xvi. 28, " I Came forth
from the^Tather"— that is, I was sanctified and
endowed by him for the work I have commenced,

the redemption of mankind. " I came into the
world," that is, I began the work which he gave
to do, and have brought down upon me an op
position that will put an end to my personal
ministry. Again I leave the world — I retire
from this scene of action, and go unto the
Father— that is,. I withdraw from the world,
and go to Him from whom I received this great
commission. I cannot, if I would, compel you to accept
this exposition of this passage. I can only beg
of you to consider the passage in the light I
have thrown upon it, and see for yourselves
whether or not, it be in accordance with the
general scope of what the Scriptures declare
respecting Christ.
My friend on the other side dwelt awhile
upon the expression " sent into the world,"
and contended that Jesus must have been in
another world or he could not have been sent
into this world. The utter weakness of that
argument is made apparent to any one who
remembers in how many instances in the Old
Testament the prophets of the Lord are said to
have been sent by him, and sent from him to
proclaim some truth, to utter some command
ment, (Ex. iii. 13, 14-15,) to give some promise,
or pronounce some condemnation. Isa. 48 16.
So too, Mr. Lee, argued that the expression
he took upon him the seed of Abraham, and
took upon him the form of a servant, implied
that he must have had another and higher
nature, upon which he took that nature or
form of being in which he appeared as the re
deemer of mankind.
He quoted Hebrews ii. 14, " For as much then
as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same,"
implying that he was superior to such beings
as are clothed in flesh " that through death he
might destroy him that had the power of death,
that is, the devil." 16 verse, " For verily he
took not on him the nature of angels ; but he
took on him the seed of Abraham.
If you will observe, Mr. Chairman, the words
in this 16 verse, him the nature of in our com
mon version, are in italics, intimating that there
is nothing corresponding to them in the origi
nal ; why they were put in here, if the transla
tors understood the meaning of the original,
one cannot divine, unless it was to make an
other text that might be quoted in behalf of
the doctrine we are discussing. Sir, the best
commentators, Dr. Adam Clarke amongst them,
concnr in saying that epilambanetai the word

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

91

translated " took on him" means rather to help
to succor, to save from sinking. It was not his
mission to raise or save fallen or falling angels,
bnt to redeem men from destruction and spirit
ual death. He was therefore adapted to this
work. He was a man. He had been tempted
in all points like as men are, and had himself
been made perfect through suffering, showing
that Jesus who is the sanctifier and they who
may be sanctified by him are all one, the same
kind of beings, so that he is not ashamed to
call them brethren. Now, Sir, in the light of
these few hints let me give a true translation
of the verses under consideration, with a few
that precede and a few that come after, that
you may see how little support this passage
gives to my friend'B doctrine of the two natures.
or of the pre-existence of Christ. I will begin
with the 10th verse— "For it became him for
whom are all things and by whom are all things
in bringing many sons to glory to make the
captain of their salvation perfect through suf
ferings. For both he that sanctifieth, and they
who are sanctified, are all of one, for which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.
saying I will declare thy name unto my breth"
ren, in the midst of the church, will I sing
praise unto thee. For as much then as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he
also himself likewise took part of the same.
For verily he took not hold of angels to succor
them, but he took hold to save the seed of Abra
ham. Wherefore in all things it was befitting
that he should be made like unto his brethren ;
that he might be a merciful and faithful high
priest, in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people. For
in that he himself hath suffered — being tempted,
he is able to succor them that are tempted."
MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.
I shall pot now review the last positions taken
by Mr. May, but proceed to my direct argu
ments. [The conclusion of the argument on
the personality and deityJ of the Holy Ghost,
which was delivered now, is found at the begin
ning of the first speech of this evening. Mr.
Lee then proceeded with the following argu
ment on the Trinity. — Beporter.]
" There is bnt one living and true God, ever
lasting, of infinite power, wisdom, and good
ness ; the maker and preserver of all things,
visible and invisible. And in unity of this
Godhead there are three persons of one sub
stance, power, and eternity ; — the Father, the
Bon, [the Word] and the Holy Ghost."

I. The doctrine of this article is a necessary
consequence of the points already admitted or
proved. 1. It is admitted that there is but one only
living and true God.
2. It is admitted that the person called the
Father in this article, is God in the fullest and
highest sense.
3. It has been proved that the Son or Word
is God, possessing all the names and titles, all
the attributes, performing acts, and receiving
all the worship which belong to the Father.
4. lt has been proved that the Holy Ghost
is God, possessing the name and attributes of
God. From these points thus admitted or proved,
it follows that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
exist in the unity of the Godhead.
As it is clear that the three are God, it must
follow that they exist in the unity of one God
head, or that there are three Gods.
But it is admitted that there is but one God,
therefore the three already proved to possess
absolute divinity, must exist in the unity of
the Godhead.
II. The doctrine under consideration receives
additional support from an implied plurality
in the Godhead, found in the Scriptures.
1. The very name God, Elohim, in tbe He
brew, is admitted to be in the plural form.
Elohim is said to be the plural of El, or
Eloah. " Elohim is the same as Eloah-; one being
singular, the other plural. Nevertheless Elo
him is generally construed in the singular, par
ticularly when the true God is spoken of ; when
false gods are spoken of it is rather construed
in the plural." — Robinson's Calmet ; word
Eloah. " The name of God occurs frequently in both
the singnler and plural, but never in the dual."
— Roy, word Elohim.
Gesenius admits the word to be plural and
refers to Gen. xx. 13. " God caused me to
wander," he renders«it, " tiie Gods caused me
to wander." •
" Let those who# have any doubt, whether
Elohim, when applied to the true God, Jeho
vah, be plural or not, consult the following
passages where they will find it joined with
adjectives, Verbs and pronouns plural." — Park-
hust.

98

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

vThe,author gives nearly ;30 -texts. Among
them are Gen, i. 26 ; iii. 22 ; xi. 7 ; xx. 13 ;
xxxi. 7, 53, xxxv. 7.
This fact. is alluded, to in the followingt com
ment on the sixth section of Leviticus, by Rab
bi Simeon. prjSolojnon ,ben Joaehi, " Come and
see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are
three degrees, and each degree by itself alone,
and yet notwithstanding they are, all one, and
are not divided from each other."
I have not, the original of this, but .find it
quoted by Dr; ,Clarkp,in his note on Gen. i. 1.
I'alsofindit quoted in Boy's , Hebrew; and
English Dictionary. ,, Word Elohim. •
2. There are several texts in which the name
of God is connected with plural pronouns.
" God said, let us make man in our image,
after our likeness." , Gen. i. 26..
Here are two plural pronouns, and one of
them repeated. Let tis make — in. our image —
after our likeness.,
/To, whom did God speak'?
JNot to, angels for several reasons. , ,
(1.) Man was to be made after the. image
and likeness of the speaker and the. spoken to.
Our likeness) and our image, implies that the
speaker and the .spoken were of one essence,
presenting one likeness and image. If God
addressed angels, in whose image was man made?
In the image of God, or in the image of angels ?
That he was made in the image of the Crea
tor is clearly proved.
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his
head, forasmuch as he is the image apd glory
Of God :" 1 Cor. xi. 7.
','' Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have
put off the old man with his deeds ; And have
put on the new -.man, which is renewed in knowl
edge after the image of him that created him."
Col. iii. 9, 10. .
" And be renewed in the spirit of your mind ;
And that ye put on the new man, which after
God is created in'righteousness* and true holi
ness."' Eph- iv.r23, 24.
'.' Therewith bless we G*>d, even the Father ;
and therewith curse we men, which- are made
after, the similitude of, God." James iii. 9.
These texts prove that it was after; theimage
of. God that man was created. ,,
?t{2.) j There is not the slightest evidence that
the angels had any, thing to dp with, creating

man, or anything else. No allusion is found
to any such idea, in all tiie Scriptures,
"And the Lord God said behold the man
has become as one of us to know good 'and
evil." Gen. iii. 23. ' l
" Go to, let us go down, and there Confound
their language, that they may not understand
one another's speech." Gen. xi. 7.
3. The Scriptures often distinctly refer to,
the three persops in the Godhead, and associate'
them as equal, in, the .solemn,, transactions in
which God is, concerned. ,,
" In the year that king Uzziah died I saw
also the -Lord sitting .upon' a throne, high and'
lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above
it stood the seraphims : each one had six wings;
with twain he covered his face, and With twain
he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
And one cried unto another, and gaid, Holy
holy, holy, ?s the Lord of, hosts; the whole
earth is full of his glory. Also I heard the
voice of the Lord, saying,. Whom shall I send,.
apd who will go fpr us ;?.,,, Then said ¦ I Here
am I ;rseud me." Isa. vi. 1, 2, 3, 8;
Here the prophet saw the Lord. It has been
shown that- the Lord here seen was. Jesus
Christ. The seraphims cried one to another, holy,
holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. This may be
significant of the three persons inthe Godhead.
The prophet then heard the voJee ¦ of the
Lord, saying, " whom shall I send, and who
will go for us." Here is a plurality of persons
for whom the prophet went. :
' But the prophet went for, the " one living
and true God ;" there is therefore, a plurality
of person's in. the Godhead.
"^eek ye out of the book of the Lord, and
read-; no , one of these shall fail, none shall
want her mate : for my mouth it hath command
ed, and his Spirit it hath gathered them." Isa-.
xxxiv. 16.
Here are three personalities, the Bpeaker, my
mouth hath commanded. .
The second person as represented by : the
pronpnn his, in the possessive case.
The third person is the , Spirit, " his spirit,
it hath gathered them." ;
, " Cometye,near unto me, hear ye this;!
have not spoken in secret-from the beginningi ;
from the time that -it was, there, am ,1 : and

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

99

now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.
Thus saith the Lord, thy Bedeemer, the Holy
One of Israel ; I am the Lord thy God which
teafheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by
by the way that thou shouldest go. Oh that
thou hadst, hearkened to my commandments !
then had thy peace been as a river, and thy
righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isaiah
Xlviii- 16-18.
Here are the speaker, the , Lord God, and
his Spirit, making, three. God and his Spirit
are clear. The Speaker may be the prophet,
Cyrus, or the Messiah.
" Yet now be strong, 0 Zerubbabel, saith
the Lord ; and be strong, O Joshua son of*
Josedech, the high priest ; and be strong, all
ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work :
for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts :
According to the- word that I covenanted with
you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit
remaineth among you : fear ye not. For thus
saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once, it is a, little
while, and I will shake the heavens, and the
earth, and the sea, and the dry land ; And I
will shake all nations, and, tiie Desire of all
nations shall come : and I will fill this house
with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.*" Haggai.
ii. 4-7.
Here are three persons, the speaker, the
Lord of hosts ; His spirit that remained among
them ; and, the desire of all nations that was
to come.
- " And Jesus, when he was baptized, went
up straightway out of the water : and, lo, the
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light-
npon him":" Matt.' iii. 16.
Here we have a clear view of the three per
sons in the Godhead, the Son coming up from
the water, the Holy Gliost lighting upon him,
and the. Father, speaking from heaven.
. " How much more shall the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered , himself
withoptiSpot to God, purge your 'conscience
from dead works to serve the living God?"
Heb. ix. 16.
Here is the whole Trinity concerned in the
work of redemption.
God the Father to whom the Offering is made.
Jesus Christ, the sacrifice who offered him
self to God. '

The eternal Spirit, through whom the offer
ing was made.
"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :" Matt.,
xxviii. 19.
Baptism is a most, solemn aot of Christian
worship, and it is performed in the name of the,
Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Baptism is also a most solemn act of conse
cration to God.
MR. MAY'S SECOND SPEECH.
. To-morrow evening, Sir, I ehall devote my
self to an examination of Air. Lee's argument,
in support of the distinct personality of the.
Holy Ghost. This evening I must dispose. pf
another subject, introduced by my friend's in
quiry, whether I believed Jesus to be the Son
of Joseph as well as of Mary. My reply will
exhibit, to some extent, the method, which I
think ought to be pursued, in the iivestigation
of any important doctrine, alleged to be. taught
in the Bible.
I know not of any so complete and yet so
concise description of the Bible, as that given
by Edmund Burke. " The Bible," said he, " is
no one summary of doctrine regularly digested,
in which a man could not mistake bis way ; jhX.
is a most venerable, but most -multifarious col
lection of the records of Divine Economy ,-r-a
collection of an infinite variety ; of cosmogomy,
theology, legislation, e,thics, carried threugh
different books by different authors, at. different
ages, for different ends and purposes. It is ne
cessary to sort out what was intended for exam
ple ; what only as narrative ; what to be under
stood figuratively, and what literally ; where
one precept is to be controlled and modified by
another ; what is used directly, and what only
as an argumentum ad hominem; what is tem
porary, and what of perpetual obligation ; what
appropriated to our state and set of men, and
what the general duty of all men in all ages."
It is one thing, Sir, to search over its pages
to find texts which may give countenance or
support to one's pre-conce'ived opinions; ahd
quite another thing to study the Bible in order
to find out what is really taught in it. That
one may become thoroughly acquainted with
the contents of this invaluable volume, he muBt
acquire the languages, in which the different
parts of it were originally written ; he must
get access to the most accurate copies of the

100

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Hebrew and Greek Testaments; and be pos
sessed of much knowledge of the manners, cus
toms, theological opinions, and usages of speech,
peculiar to the different ages, .and nations, in
which the different writers of those Scriptures
lived, and for whom they wrote. But any in
dividual, who has good sense, and a sufficient
amount of fidelity and patience, may learn from
our common English Translation alone, though
it was made nearly a hundred and fifty years
ago, since which time the meanings of many
English words have undergone considerable
changes, — I say, such a person from this trans
lation alone may learn, not only all that is
essential to salvation, but enough of true the
ology to enable him to reject many of the
greatest errors, that have been fastened, for
more than a thousand years, upon the faith of
Christendom. Since the invention of printing, the sacred
Scriptures have been transferred from a few'
manuscript copies, to printed editions almost
numerous enough to put a copy into every
family, if not into the hand of every individual
of every Protestant country, in his own lan
guage. This has every where changed more or
less, the theological opinions of men. And
when the restrictions, that have beenput upon
the study of the Bible by Protestant Churches,
are thrown down, and the people are left just
as free to study the volume of revelation, as
they are to study the volume of nature, there
will be a much greater uniformity of opinion
than now exists among Protestant sects ; and a
much more general and farther departure from
the theology of the Dark Ages.
My friend on the other side has repeatedly, in
the course of this discussion, charged me with
treating the Bible disrespectfully ; rejecting its
authority ; and deducing from it's pages doc
trines, which he considers fearfully wrong.
Whether this charge be a just one, you who
have heard what I said, must judge for your
selves, as you will be the better able to do,
after you shall have carefully read the printed
report, of, this discussion. For my part, I can
not conceive how any man can do a greater
Injury to the Bible, than by making it responsi
ble for that theological system, no where stated
on its own pageB, which represents God as the
inexorable tyrant of the uiftverse, Christ as a
complex being, so strangely compounded that
we cannot, know, when to regard him as a man,
•ontending gloriously with the temptations and

trials of a life on earth, the object at one time
of the deepest sympathy and at another of the
warmest admiration ; and when an the infinite
God beyond the reach of suffering, and claiming
only the worship of all : — a system, moreover,
which represents the condition of the human
race to be such, that to very much the larger
part of mankind, in all ages past and present,
the gift of existence shall prove to be an ever
lasting curse. I repeat it, Sir, that for my part,
I cannot imagine how a man can show greater
disrespect to the Bible than to make it respon
sible for that system of doctrines which rests
upon the doctrine of the Trinity as its basis.
But I did not intend to trouble you, Sir, with
sb much in reply to what Mr. Lee has said, at
sundry times and in diverse manners, of my use
of the Bible.
You remember, Sir, that mv friend the other
evening, demanded, in a very peremptory tone,
whether I believed that Jesus was the son of
Joseph as well as Mary. Perhaps he foresaw,
that my answer to that question would shock
most of our auditors, and prejudice them against
me and all else, that I might have to say in the
course of this discussion. But any one. Sir,
who will Study the Bible instead of merely
collating texts to prove his cherished opinions,
will find in it a great deal to justify the belief,
that Jesus, according to the flesh, was the Son
of Joseph.
First. If we accept the vii. of Isaiah 14 verse,
there is no passage in the whole Old Testament
that would suggest the expectation that the
birth of the Messiah would in any wise be mi
raculous. On the contrary, all the prophecies
and promises, are so expressed, that they would
lead the reader tp expect, that the long-prom
ised deliverer would be a man, a natural and
legitimate descendant of Abraham, and of the
particular lineage of David. Turn to Deut.
xviii. 16. Moses there says to the People of Is
rael, " The Lord thy God willraise up unto thee
a Prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy breth
ren like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken."
And in the 18 verse he tells them the Lord said
unto me, " I will raise them up a Prophet f torn
among their brethren, like unto thee, and will-
put my words in his mouth ; and he shall speak
unto them all that I shall command them."
Surely by such language the people must have
been led to expect thattbeir Messiah was to be
a man conceived and born in the same way as
other men, who should be one of the brethren

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

101

of the children of Abraham, as much so as their
great leader Moses was. And when God swore
mnto David, " that of the fruit of his loins ac
tor ding to the flesh he would raise up Christ
to tit upon his throne," (Acts ii. 30, referring
no doubt to 2 Sam. vii. 12,) what else could
have been understood, but that Christ was to
be a man, born in the regular line of descent
from David. He is elsewhere often spoken of
as the Son of David, of the tribe of Judah, &c.
Now, Sir, Christ could not be heir to the
throne of David, unless he had a lineal descend
ant of David for his father; because females
did not inherit amongst the Jews. ¦ This is well
understood by all the commentators. Dr. Whit
by, on whom Dr. Adam Clarke bestows this
eommendation — " Whitby is learned, argumen
tative and thoroughly orthodox ;" Dr. Whitby
•ays, " It was necessary that the genealogy of
Jeeus should be declared from Joseph, * * *
because if Joseph had not been acknowledged
to have been of the tribe of Judah, and of the
family of David, they (the Jews) would not have
failed to have objected this as a just prejudice
against all Christ's pretences to have been the
Messiah ; wherefore (he adds) the Divine Wis
dom was pleased to direct this Apostle to re
move that stumbling block." Here you see,
this thoroughly orthodox commentator admits,
that it would have been an insuperable objec
tion to Cnrist's claims, if it had appeared, that
he was not a descendant of David. He admits
also that genealogies were reckoned in the male
line only. To say therefore, as my opponent
does, that Joseph was not his father according
to the flesh, is to make these genealogies a mere
cover to conceal the real fact from the Jews,
who were expecting a deliverer that would be a
Son of David. But there is no appearance of
its being a device, to answer a pui pose for a
season. The genealogies were evidently in
tended to prove that Jesus was of the seed of
Abraham, and of the family of David. That
which is given by Matthew begins no farther
back than Abraham ; and brings down the line
of succession to " Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.''
The genealogy given in Luke traces the descent
of Christ up through Joseph to David, Abraham
and Adam. But unless Joseph was the father
of Jesus, these genealogies do not help to es
tablish Christ's claim to the Messiahship. The
expression used in Luke, " being as was sup
posed the Son of Joseph," need not throw any
donbt upon the fact, that he was the Son of

Joseph. They only declare what was generally
believed. So, too, the expression in Matthew —
"Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was
born Jesus." Although, I confess, both the
clauses seem to have been introduced, by way
of accommodation to the account of the mirac
ulous conception. But plainly enough, if Jesus
waB not really the Son of Joseph, but one mi
raculously born of Mary, without the interven
tion of a father, if this were true, then I say the
genealogies are quite useless. Either the ge
nealogies hiust be given up, as proving nothing,
not pertinent, or the account of the miraculous
conception must be relinquished as one of the
many apocryphal stories, which were circulated
in the primitive age of the church, most of
which were rejected by the framers of our
present canon of Scripture, and specimens of
which may be found in a volume entitled the
Apocryphal New Testament.
Suppose then, that Mr. Lee, concludes to
abandon the genealogies as proving nothing
but that the reputed father of Jesus was, of the
lineage of David.
I will ask him to come with me again to the
examination of Matt. i. 22, 23, which he no doubt
considers an irrefragable proof that Jesus was
born of a virgin, according to a divine prophe
cy. "Now all this was done that it might be
fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with
child, and shall bring forth a son." Turn to
the passage, Sir, as it stands in Isaiah vii. 14,
and you will find it difficult to discover any
reference to a miraculous conception, or to any
very future event. That the words as they
there stand related to the birth of a child about
to take place, during the life ot Ahaz, is evident
enough from the context. For in verse 16, it is
said, "Before the child shall know how to re
fuse the evil or check the good," a desirable
eveut was to take place. But there would have
been no propriety in saying this of a child, not
to be born until more than seven centuries after
that event. That the prediction was accom
plished, that such -a child was born in that age,
cannot be denied ; but that a miraculous con
ception took place then, no one pretends to.
believe. And the Hebrew word translated
virgin does not necessarily mean an uumarried
woman, but may , mean also a, young married
woman. Bishop Lowth affirms the obvious and
literal meaning to be, " That withiu the time,
that a young woman, now- a virgin, should con
ceive and bring forth a child, and that child

102

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

should arrive, at such an age as to distinguish
between good and evil, that is' within a few;
years, the enemies of Judah should be destroy--
ed." , To that child in the days of Aha^, so
designated by the prpphet, the name of Imman-'
uel was given, in accordance with the custom
of the Hebrews. , It signified that God, would
be with them, aud before long, deliver them out
of their trouble. The birth of Jesus, which did
not take place until more than, seven hundred
years after that prediction, could not be to
Ahaz and his people a sign of the deliverance1
they were longing for. Hence there are many,
who, nothwithstanding the index which our
translators have put at the head of the chapter,
conclude that the words of the prophet had no
relation to the birth of Christ. And when it is
observed that in Matt. ii. 15 the words (Hoshea
xi. 1) " out of Egypt have I called my son,"
and in the 18 verse the words (Jere. xxxi. 15)
"In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation
and weeping," &c, are quoted as prophetic,
though as they are found in their original places
in the Old Testament there is obviously nothing
prophetic in their character— I say, Sir, when
this is observed, a careful student of the Bible
may bo led to suppose that the passage {Isa.,
vii. 14) may have been quoted by Math, in
Chap. i. 22, 23 in the same spirit of accommo
dation, as the passages in the second chapter,
15 and 18, were unquestionably used.
Then, Sir, how will my opponent dispose of
the fact that Christ calls himself and is called
by others a man forty times, and "the son of
man" upwards of eighty times? If he had not
had a human father how was he the son of man ?
Adam is never called the son of man, for he had
no earthly parents, but " the Son of God."
Luke iii. 38. It seems to me, Sir, natural to
conclude that, as Jesus, the true and faithful
witness so often called himself, so he really was
the sou of man.
Then Sir, let me through you, ask my friend
to consider, what was the general opinion of
the people of his age respecting Jesus ; the
opinion of his relatives, his neighbors, his coun
trymen ; where can he show me evidence that
they regarded him as any other than a man,
the Son of Joseph. Luke ii. 48. In the account
of what happened when he was about twelve
years old on his return with this parents from
Jerusalem, they fearing that he was lost from
their company, went back in pursuit of him,
and his mother said, " Thy father and I have

sought thee sorrowing.'} Here the mpther-of
Jesus calls Joseph (his father. • :,
John U 45, Philip says to Nathaniel, "W#
have found him of wh,om Moses in the law, and
the prophets did write, Jes^s, of Nazareth, tfre
Son of Joseph.'.' , This shows that the disciples
supposed the person, of whom Moses and the
prophets wrote, would have an, earthly father,
and that they believed Joseph to be the father
of Jesus." , ,;
Luke im 22, "Is not this Joseph's son?"
This^shows that the people pf Nazareth, where
Jesus had been brought up; believed him to be
Joseph's son.,
John vi. 42, " fs not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, -whosp father and mother we know." . -
And Math. xiii. 55, "Is npt this the carpen
ter's son?" , ,,,,. ,
These passages show that the Jews in general
believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph.
But, Sir, there is a more remarkable passage
still, to the same effect. In- the account which
Luke gives of the miraculous conception, we
read the angel said unto Mary, "Fear not,
Mary, for thou has found favor with God. And
behold ! thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
bring forth a Son, and shall callhis name Jesus.
He shall be. great and shall be called the Son of
the Highest, and the Lord God shall give him
the throne of his. father David. And he shall
reign over the house of Jacob forever ; and of
his kingdom there shall be no end." Here it
was told Mary in the most explicit manner that
her son was to be the Messiah, whom the Jews
expected to sit on the throne of David, and
assume over mankind a dominion that should
never end ; and it appears moreover from the
words of Mary that she understood the angels
as making this assertion. ¦'
NPw, if such an occurrence actually took
placej how are we to account for what is re
corded. Mark iii. 20-21, " And the multitude
came together again so that they could not so
much as eat bread. When his friends heard of
it, they went out to lay hold of him ; for they
said he is beside himself." The friends here
alluded to were his relations! They are spoken
of again in the 31 verse Pf the' same chapter as
" his brethren and his mother." His mother'
then, it seems, thought that he was beside him
self ; that he was deranged ; because poor and
unlearned as he was, he did and said such things
as implied that he was the Messiah, and yet
pursued a course the very reverse of what the

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

103

Jews expected their Messiah Would adoptj-But,
if she had really been informed by an angel as
the account off the miraculous coneeption al
leges, that her son was to be the Messiah, would
she have had any doubts respecting.him ?
Then in addition to the above considerations,
hear the direct testimony to the fact that he
was the Son of Joseph. John i. 45 Philip says
to Nathaniel, " We have found him of whom
Moses in the law, and the prophets did write,
Jesus of Naiareth, the Son' of Joseph." John
v. 46, Jesus himself says, " Had1 ye .believed
Moses; ye would have believed me ; for he wrote
of me." Now what Moses wrote I have already
quoted,ithat Gpd would raise up unto them a
prophet like unto himself. And elsewhere, you
remember he is often- called a prophet. John
vi. 14, vii. 40-42 ; Luke xiii. 33. xxiv 19 ; Acts
iii-. 22, vii. 37. : '
Iri Acts ii. 22, Jesus of Nazareth is declared
to have been "a man approved of God among
you by miracles and wonders and signs, which
God did'by firm in the midst of you. No allu-
,sion is made to the miraculous birth of Jesus
in any of the discourses, or any of the Epistles
of the Apostles. Not the slightest reference is
made to that peculiarity of his birth by Mark
or John, nor by the other evangelists excepting
in the single passages where it is recorded. No
appeal in behalf of his authority as a divine
messenger is, in any part of the Bible, based
upon his miraculous birth, but uniformly upon
the wisdom of his teaching and the miraculous
powers that he evinced. But oil the contrary
in Hebrews ii. 37 it was argued that "in all
things it behooved him to be vnade like unto
his brethren." Would a believer in his mirac
ulous coneeption use such language; without
adding a word to remind the reader, that Christ
was conceived in a manner unlike other men.
But the writer to the Hebrews intimates no
thing of the kind. If in all things Jesus was
made like unto his Tiretliren, is it not thenatur-
al inference, that he was conceived as they
were? And this was, I suppose, the belief of
the primitive church. The first converts to
Christianity were made from amongst the Jews.
They were called Nazarines and Ebionites.
Some have alleged that these two claeses of
Christians differed on this very subject of the
miraculous conception. But Dr. Priestly gives
in his history of Early Opinions, vol; iv. p. 77,
a good reason for believing that this was not

without qualification, ** It is well known that
the Ebionites maintained that their copies of
this (Matthew's) Gospel, which wanted the in
troduction, (containing the accountof the mi
raculous conception,) was the genuine workof
the Apostles." He gives Jerome as his author
ity for saying that the Gospel used by the Naz
arines and Ebionites "was by most persons
called the authentic gospel of Matthew."
I have now given you, Sir, and this audience
my reasons for believing that Jesus was the Son
of Joseph as he was supposed to be ; and that
those parts of Matthew and Luke which tell Of
his miraculous conception, were interpolated at
a very early day. In yielding as I have done
my belief: to tbe reasons now stated, Lmay have
erred; but, Sir,/ 1 see not what inducement I
can have to deeide this question contrary to
evidence. My opposition to the doctrine of the
Trinity would not impel me to an unfair deci
sion on this point, for Sir; even if the account
of the miraculous conception be established as
a veritable part of the history of Jesus, it would
not. help much if ahy to support the doctrine of
his deity, for the same Evangelist (Luke) who
gives the most particular account of the mira*
cle wrought in the- conception of Jesus, tells us
also of miracles no less wonderful connected
with the birth of John the Baptist. And if we
turn back to the Old Testament, we read that
Samson and Isaac: were both miraculously con
ceived,' and Melchisedec is said to have had
neither father nor mother, and certainly Adam
had not either, but was created directlyby Gad— *
is called by Luke the Son of God, and yet no
one believes that he was any more or less than
a man. But I have trespassed upon time, and, must
leave my argument to make what impression it
lmay upon thoEe who; have, heard it, and will be
'candid enough to examine it in the light of those
Scriptures to which I have referred.
EIGHTH EVENING— MARCH 16.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH;
I wish to say that I have been extremely de
sirous to close this discussion the present week.
There are various reasons for this, felt by many
besides myself. With a view to such a result I
desired to have prosecuted the discussion last
evening, but Mr. May complained of hoarseness
and I yieldedjas in duty bound. I am still wil
ling to close this week, and to accomplish such
a desirable end, I am willing to continue the'

the point of thfeir' disagreement, and he BayS,jdiacussion to.morrow evening, and Saturday'

104

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

evening, if my friend will consent. But if he
insists on pushing.it over into another week I
shall go with him, for I am bound to continue
until he shall be satisfied, or the people decline
to come to hear us.
I had nearly finished my argument on the
Trinity, which I will now complete, and com
mence a review.
The point under consideration <vas the topic
of Baptism. I said just at closing— Baptism is
a most solemn act of Christian worship, and it
is performed in the name of the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost.
Baptism is also a most solemn act of conse
cration to God.
lt is the naming of the person baptized after
God, and he is named after the whole Trinity.
Baptism is the seal of God's covenant, the in
troductory rite into covenant with God, by
which God covenants to be our God, and we cov
enant to be exclusively his people.
This makes the form of Baptism absolute
proof of the Trinity.
If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, do not
exist in unity of the Godhead, then are Chris
tians consecrated to one God, one creature, and
one attribute or influence, or something else as
fancy may explain.
Then'does humanity, by baptism, enter into
covenant with one God, one creature, and one
a.tribute, influence, or something else.
" But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on
your mo^t holy faith, praying in the Holy
Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God,
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
unto eternal life." Jude 20, 21.
Here we have the three persons of the God
head referred to as all equally concerned in our
worship and our salvation.
" Keep yourselves in the love of God."
" Praying in the Holy Ghost."
" Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ, unto eternal life."
'•The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all. Amen," 2d Corinthi
ans, xiii. 14.
Here the threefold blessing pronounced, cor-
responds'to the three in the unity of the God
head. In the preceding text the Holy Ghost is named
first ; God, by which the Father is meant, sec
ond ; and our Lord Jesus Christ last., In this
text Christ is mentioned first, God the second,
and the Holy Ghost last.

I propose to offer a brief reply to Mr. May's
last argument, which was a denial of the mira
culous conception of Christ, and an open attack
upon the integrity of the Scriptures.
I regret the introduction of this topic in de
tail into the discussion. Not that I apprehend
any difficulty in answering the objections of Mr.
May, but because of its peculiar nature. But
on him rests the responsibility. As he has giv
en one side of the question in full, and that will
be published, I must reply to the argument as
he has spread it out before you.
I will commence with that remarkable pro
phecy : —
' Therefore the Lord himself shall give yon
a sign : Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Isa. vii. 14.
The history of this is, Pekah, king of Israel,
had slain 120,000 persons in one day, and car
ried away captive 100,000. Eezin, king of Sy
ria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken
Elath, a fortified city, and carried the people to
Damascus into captivity. Ahaz, king of Judah,
no doubt-feared the overthrow, of the kingdom
of Judah, and the extinction of the House of
David. At this point Isaiah was sent to encour
age him.
" Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth
now to meet Ahaz. And say unto him, Take
heed and be quiet ; fear not, neither be faint
hearted, for the two tails of these smoking fire
brands, for the fierce anger of Eezin with Syria,
and of the son of Bemaliah. Because Syria,
Ephraim, and the son of Bemaliah, have taken
evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up
against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a
breach therein for us, and set & king in the midst
of it, even the son of Tabeal : Thus saith the
Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it
come to pass." Isa. vii. 3-7.
Here is a promise of the defeat pf his ene
mies, and this prediction ends.
To confirm Ahaz, he is told to ask a sign,
which he refused to do.
The Prophet takes up a new aspect of the sub
ject and names a sign.
'• Behold a Virgin shall conceive," &c.
It is asked with much emphasis —
" But.how could this be a sign to Ahaz ?"
The meaning is, Eezin and Pekah shalLnot
only fail, but the kingdom of Judah shall stand
until a Virgin shall cpmjeive and bear a son.
That son was to be the Messiah. When the pre:
| diction was fulfilled by the birth of Christ, of

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

105

the Virgin Mary, the House of David failed for
ever. (See this view defended at large in
Clarke's Commentary, a part of which is bor
rowed from Harmer's Overvation, Volume 1,
page 299.)
Now let us look at the text itself. A Virgin,
the Hebrew word is, haalmah. Dr. Eoy, in his
Hebrew and English Dictionary defines it thus :
" The pure virgin, that is, one *who never had
intercourse with man."
Now come down to the New Testament. Mat
thew, in quoting the text, uses the Greek word
parthenos to represent the Hebrew haalmah.
Now, whatever may be the sense of the Hebrew,
this Greek words means a virgin, in the truest
and purest sense, and nothing else. It is defin
ed thus, "A person unacquainted with the other
sex."— Groves.
The word is found only fourteen times in the
New Testament, and in every case it denotes a
virgin in the true literal sense, except two, as
follows : —
2d Cor. xi. 2, " That I may present you as a
chaste virgin to Christ."
Eev. xiv. 4, " These are they which were not
defiled with women, for they are virgins."
In every other case where the word occurs, it
means an unmarried, pure female. This settles
the meaning of the Prophet as quoted by the
Evangelist. Now look at the record upon its face.
" Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this
wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Jo
seph her husband, being a just man, and not wil
ling to make her a public example,, was minded
to put her away privily. But while he thought
on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph,
thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee
Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth
a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus : for
he shall save his people from their sins. Now
all this was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the vLord by the prophet,
saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel ; which being interpreted . i
God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from
sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden
him, and took unto him his wife. And knew
her not until she had brought forth her first-
8

born son ; and he called his name Jesus." Matt.
i. 18-25. Here are several points worthy of notice,
1. The discovery that a child about to be born,
was made before Joseph and Mary came togeth
er — that is, before the nuptial bans had been
solemnized, they having only contracted mar
riage. 2. The feelings and purposes of Joseph, to put
her away, clearly proves that he was not the fa
ther of the prospective child.
3. The fact is twice affirmed that Mary's pros
pective son had been begotten by the Holy
Ghost. First, this is affirmed by the Evangelist
that it was "Of the Holy Ghost." Second
is repeated in the words of the angel to Joseph
— " that which is conceived in her is of the Ho
ly Ghost."
4. It is declared that that was a fulfillment of
the words of the prophet, "A virgin shall be
with child," &c.
5. It is affirmed that Joseph " knew her not,
until she had brought forth her first-born son."
All these points make the matter of the mir
aculous conception as clear as it can be.
Now let us turn over to the gospel of St.
Luke and examine the account there given of
the same matter.
"And in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was
sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named
Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose
name was Joseph, of the house of David ; nd
tbe virgin's name was Mary. And the angel
came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art
highly favored, the Lord is with thee ; blessed
art thou among women. And when she saw him
she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her
mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary, for
thou hast found favor with God. And, behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus,. Then
said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, see
ing I know not a man ? And the angel answer
ed and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee,, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy
thing which shall be born, of thee shall be „all-
ed the Son of. God." Luke i. 26-35.
In this account we find all the essential facts
recorded in Matthew.
1. The same account of the visit of the angel
to Mary is here found.
2. She is declared to be a virgin, though es
poused to Joseph.

106

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.

3. Mary inquired of the arigel how his pre- , the fa6t that they knew him and his parents a
diction should be fulfilled, that she should have reason, for rejecting him as the promised Mes-

a son, to use her own words, " seeing I know
not a man." This puts the matter beyond a
doubt, that she was a virgin, and expected to
remain a virgin for some time, to come.
' ¦¦ 4.' The angel answered, " The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that
boly thing whieh shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God."
Ia Luke iii. 23, we read —
"And Jesus himself began to be about -thirty
years of age, being, (as was supposed) the son
of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." .¦
This clearly implies that Jesus was not the
natural, son of Joseph. Moreover, it proves
that the preceding cannot have been interpola
ted at an after period. The allusion to ;what is
recorded in the first chapter, and also to what is
recorded in Matthew, is so plain, that they can
not be interpolations, unless this also be inter
polated. But more of this soon.
- , There is ah allusion to the same matter, chap
ter 2d : '
"And when eight days were accomplished for
the circumcising of the child, his name was call
ed Jesus, which was so named of the angel' be
fore he was conceived in the womb."
If you strike out the mirapulous conception,
you strike out the visit of the angel, and the
naming of him Jesus, here referred to, and this
second chapter must be struck out also.
Having'now spread the main facts of tf-e re
cord befdte you, let me glance at Mr. May's rea
sons for denying this portion of these two gos
pels. l.:iHe urged the genealogies as given by
Matthew and Luke, insisting that I must aban
don them as useless,1 or abandon my argument.
I replyi all his labor on that was lost, for the1
argumentin no sense depends upon them. They
were, no doubt, copied from existing records,
and their correctness or incorrectness need not
be discussed in' connection' with the 'present ar
gument. 2. It was urged that the Jews supposed him
to be the son of Joseph. This is admitted,' but
it does not prove that he was, any more than
the fact that they supposed that he was not the
Christ proves that he was not. As a matter of
course, he would be called the sou of Joseph'.
3. It was urged that the Jews expected the
Messiah to be a man, and no more' than a man.

This is a mistake. The Jews repeatedly 'made

siah. " Howbeit we know this man whence he is :
but whenChrist cometh, no man knoweth whence
he is." John vii. 27.
' If my friend had been a little more careful to
study his Bjble, he might have saved himself
this and other mistakes.
4. He next urged that his friends wondered
at him, and even thought him deranged, which
he supposes they would not, if they had under
stood his miraculous conception. This has no
bearing on the subject, for the whole matter may
have rested in the bosoms of Joseph and Mary,
until after his entry upon his public labors, and
it is written —
" But Mary kept all these things and ponder
ed them in her heart." Luke ii. 19. ,,, ;
But his mother Mary kept all these sayings
in her heart." , Verse 51.
5. He quoted as a parallel text, that which
speaks of Melchizedeck as without father and
without mother. (Heb. vii. 3.)
This only proves his weakness, for all that
can be meant is that there is no genealogy o
Melchizedeck, no record of his father or moth
er, of Ms birth or death.
MR. MAT'S FIRST SPEECH.
I am as anxious to close this discussion as my
friend can be, but more anxious to do the sub
ject justice, and must therefore notice some in
cidental matters he has introduced.
You' will remember-hls abrupt challenge with
questions, on a former occasion. And when I
would have turned to the Scriptures to' reply in
their language; he hurried me by demanding
that I answer yes or no. I did answer that I be
lieve Jesus'to be the son of Joseph. But did he
suppose' that I would not afterward give my rea
sons for that" belief? Since then I:have given
them. They are 'before you. They will be pub
lished in full,, and I hope you will read them,
and you will fiad therein the besfannwer to his
attempted reply. The responsibility of intro
ducing the theme if the conception and parent
age of Jesus, must however rest with Mr. Lee.
All I said on this matter was amply sustained
by authorities of the' orthodox school.
The- only new idea Mr. Lee' has given in his
rejoinder to me. Was that the child Jesus was to
be the seed of the woman and not of the man.
This,'however;'he must prove; I peremptorily
deny it. When he furnishes arguments to prove
it, then will I attempt to disprove it.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

101

The whole question rests on the genuineness
of the passages in Matthew and Luke. And the
best answer to his assertions of their genuine
ness is to be found in my argument as it will be
published. Bead it over again.
I did not expect that my views would be
agreed to at once. If I am in error I am wil
ling to be set right. So should you, my friend.
For who wants to be in error? I am sure I do
not. I have studied the Scriptures for years and
years, but I am compelled to discredit the story
of the miraculous conception of Jesus. The
only quotation I made from any other than an
orthodox authority, was from the writings of
Dr. Priestly. And who has studied more than
he, the writings of the ancients and the works
of the Christian fathers ? He gives the author
ity of Jerome for the adverse opinion expressed
of the genuineness of the passage relating to
the miraculous conception. ¦ These, sir, are all
the remarks I think it is necessary for me to
make on this matter. »
By the kindness of Mr. Lee I have been al
lowed to prepare my answer to his argument in
behalf of the personality and deity of the Holy
Ghost, with his manuscript before me. I shall,
therefore, not be in danger of misrepresenting
any of the points he attempted to make ; and,
moreover, by classifying the texts which he quo
ted, shall be able, I truBt, greatly to abridge
what I conceive will be a refutation of them.
Before, however, I take up his texts separate
ly or in groups, I wish to explain to you the
principles of interpretation by which I expect
to discover and unfold their real meaning. All
who have heard this discussion must have per
ceived that I do not always accept the literal
meaning of a passage of Scripture, but judge
from itself, or its context, or its relation to oth
er passages on the same subject, whether it
should not rather be interpreted more or less
figuratively; I by no means claim that this
principle is peculiar to mysdf, or to those whose
theological opinions are similar to my own. All
readers of the Bible do and must apply it in re
spect to some subjects. They cannot do other
wise in reading a book so figurative as the Bi
ble is. And there is no good reason why this
principle should not be properly applied in the
interpretation of passages relating to the great
question chat is here under discussion.
Instead of trying to decide what the phrase
Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, may or may not
mean, in* any particular passage, it seems tome

nation of the phrase, to ascertain what it may
mean, and then, by the comparison of a suffi
cient number of passages in which it occurs,
find out what it generally does mean in the Bi
ble. We shall afterwards be able to determine
with more confidence, what it must mean in any
given case.
The English word, Ghost, is from the Saxon,
" gast," and means the spirit or soul of man:
It is used, I believe, only six times in the whole
Old Testament, and in every instance in refer
ence to the death of some individual, of whom
it is said he gave or yielded up the ghost : that
is, his spirit left his body.
Throughout the Old Testament, I believe, the
phrase Holy Ghost does not once occur. And
in the New Testament, wherever Holy Ghost is
used, Holy Spirit would be a better translation,
as ghost is obsolete. One of the first definitions
given in the Lexicons of Euach, (in Hebrew,)
and of Pneuma, (in Greek,) (which means spir
it,) is wind, air in motion. And the phrase,
" of God," being in the Hebrew language a su
perlative, the Spirit of God sometimes signifies
" a mighty wind."
There are some who think this is the true
rendering of the Hebrew phrase, " Spirit of
God," in Gen. i. 2, "And a mighty wind moved
upon the face of the waters." I believe it is so
translated in the Septuagint version. Maimon-
ides, " who is generally reckoned as learned
and judicious a writer as any of the Jewish Bab-
bins," in showing the several acceptations of
the word spirit, says, as cited by Dr. Lardner,
the word signifies air and wind, and he gives aB
examples Gen. i. 2, and Exod. x. 13, 19. The
word " Ruach,'"in Hebrew, and " Pneuma," in
Greek, means also, vital breath. Ps. lxxviii. 36,
" He remembereth that they were but flesh, a
wind, (a spirit) that paBseth away and cometh
not again." It is used, also, Gen. vi. 17, " And
all flesh wherein is the breath of life." It sig
nifies, also, the divine influence that inspired
the prophets and enabled them to prophesy.
Num. xi. 17, When the seventy elders were ap|
pointed God said unto Moses " I will take of the
spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon
them." And again, in the 25th verse we read,
"And the Lord * * , * took the
spirit that was upon him, (Moses,) and gave it
unto the seventy elders, and it came to pass
that when the spirit rested upon them, they pro-.
phesied." Bish-op Burnet, in his " Exposition of
the Thirty-nine Articles," Article 5, page 67,

more rational first, by an etymological exami ' eives us this comment, " Spirit, signifies wind,

108

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT.

or breath ; and in the Old Testament it stand
frequently in that sense. The Spirit of God,
or wind of God, stands sometimes for a high
and Btrong wind ; but more frequently it signi
fies a secret impression made by God on the
mind of a prophet."
" It is further admitted," says Doctor J. P-
Smith, in his Scripture testimony to the Messi
ah, " It is further admitted that, in many places
the phrase, Spirit of God, and its synonyms are
used to denote any especial influence or energy
of God, whether exercised in a miraculous man
ner, or according to the ordinary laws of na
ture." See Trinitarian Concessions, page 95.
Gesenius, whose Lexicon has been repeatedly
quoted and justly commended by Mr. Lee, says,
in reference to the word Euh, or Euach, it
means, " The spirit of God or Jehovah ; more
properly by way of eminence, the spirit, or
God'a holy spirit." By this name is denoted
the life-giving breath or power of God, in men
and animals, Job xxvii. 3, xxxiii. 4, Ps. civ. 30,
Gen. vi. 3 ; which operates also through inani
mate nature, Job xxvi. 13 ; which moved over
the chaotic mass in the creation, Gen. i. 2, and
produces whatever is noble and good in mnnl
by making him wise, Job xxxii. 18 ; by leading
him to virtue, Ps. Ii. 11, and by guiding him
generally, Hag. ii. 5 ; Ps. cxliii. 10 ; Neb. ix. 20.
But it is especially applied to extraordinary
powers and gifts, e. g. of the artificer, Exod.
xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31, of the warrior, Jud. iii. 10 ;
vi, 34 ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 25 ; of the ruler, Isa. xi. 2 ;
of the prophet, Num. xxiv. 2 ; 1st x. 6, 10 ; xix.
20, 23 ; of the interpreter of dreams, Gen. xli.
38. Hence, man of the spirit, a prophet, Hos.
ix. 7 ; and the spirit, 1st Kings, xxii. 21 ; 2d
Oaron. xxviii. 20 ; the spirit of the'prophets, or
the power which inspires them, (personified.)
This spirit David acquires at his anointing 1st,
Sam. xvi. 13. It departs from Saul, 1st Sam
xv. 14.. That of Elijah rests upon Elisha, 2d.
Kings, ii. 15. A part of the spirit of Moses is
transferred to the seventy elders, Num. xi. 17.
It is promised to all men in the golden age,
Joel ii. 28; Isa. xliv. 3,. lix. 21. In this sense
of divine power it is sometimes opposed to flesh
or human power ; as Isa. xxxi. 3, " Their horses
are flesh and not spirit." Zech. iv. '6, that is
something earthly not divine.
In such passages as Job vi. 4 ; Isa. xxxi. 1 ;
Pb. cxxxix. 7, it may be regarded like soul, as a
mere periphrasis of the personal pronoun,"
See Gesenius, Gibb's edition.

he has Several times quoted as the highest au
thority touching the meaning of Hebrew words
-+-the assurance that the phrases " Holy Spirit,
Spirit of God," <fcc, are employed by the sacred
writers of the Old Testament in a great variety
of significations, and that even when applied to
the Almighty, they have no necessary reference
to any personal distinctions in his nature.
The Greek word pneuma will be fpund in al
most every particular to correspond, in its sig
nifications, to the HebrewrwoeA, as may be seen
by turning to the references in Whal's Lexicon
of the New Testament, by Prof. Epbinson, of
Andover ; and to the Lexicon of the New Tes
tament, by Schleusuer, who is as high an au
thority in Greek as Gesenius is in the Hebrew
nguage. Let me now remind my opponent that rnach
in Hebrew, and pneuma in Greek, are both neu
ter, that is to say impersonal, and are often so
regarded by the translators of our common ver
sion, even where the holy spirit is spoken of.
For example, Rom. viii. 16, " The spirit itsel f
beareth witiicsss with our spirit that we are the
children of God." And again in the 26th verse,
" the spirit itself maketh intercession for us."
But where can my friend point me to the use of
a neuter pronoun, with reference to the Father
or the Son. How absurd it would sound to say,
There is one God and none other tut it,"
" God itself, even our Father ;" or to say,
" Christ loved the Church, and gave itself for
it." Often, where the pronoun he or him oc
curs in the English translation in reference to
the spirit, it is in the original the neuter pro
noun, that should have been translated it. In
John xiv. 17, the neutep pronoun is four times
mis-translated. According to the Greek, the
verse reads, " The spirit of Truth, which the
world cannot receive, because it seeth j'fnot
neither knoweth it, but ye know it, for it dwell-
eth with you and shall be in you."
Ruach and pneuma being neuter nouns, is
clearly and decisively in favor of the imperson
ality of the holy spirit, excepting where, as is
frequently the case, the spirit, or the holy spir
it, is put for God ; just as the mind or spirit of
a man is put for the man himself, and so person
ified. No Unitarians, that I am acquainted with, de
ny the personality of the Holy Spirit— certain
ly I do not— wherever it is used as equivalent
to God himself. In the Christian Examiner*

* The Christian Examiner, published in Bos-
Thus have I given to Mr. Lee, from one whom ' ton, is the prominent Unitarian periodical. '

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

109

for this very month, in a review of Prof. Mau
rice's Essays, the writer — a Professor in the
Cambridge Divinity School— says, " It is true,
that Unitarians believe that the phrase Holy
Spirit, besides denoting the personal God acting
on the human soul, is also used figuratively to
denote the instrumentalities by which he works,
or the effects which he produces, and the gifts
which he bestows. But they would as soon
think of maintaining that the spirit of a man is
not personal, as that the spirit of God is not
personal." What I contend against, Mr. chairman, is the
idea and the doctrine that the Holy Spirit exists
as a person, in and of itself, any more than the
mind or spirit of a man is a persori or being
distinct from the man himself.
St. Paul has taught, plainly enough, that
there is an analogy and likeness between the re
lation that the Holy Spirit bears te the living
God, and the relation that the spirit of a man
bears to the man himself.
1st Cor. ii. 11, "What man knoweth the things
of. a man, save the spirit of man, which is in
him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no
man (or no one) but the spirit of God."
As then the spirit of a man is certainly not
another person distinct from him, but (as Paul's
illustration shows,) a certain sell-consciousness
whereby he is able to contemplate himself, and
to know those things which belong peculiarly
to him, and with which none beside can be ac
quainted, except he reveal them ; so neither is
the spirit of God a distinct person from God,
but is that divine intelligence, wisdom, and en
ergy, which is essentially in him, and, by the
communication of which he reveals and mini-
fests himself to his rational creatures. Such
revelation the Apostle claims to have received,
in the next verse, which is moreover very in
structive to us on the subject now immediately
under consideration. His words are, verse 12th,
" Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the spirit which is of God ; that we
might know the things which are freely given
to us of God."
The spirit of God is here plainly contrasted
with the "spirit of the world; now the spirit of
the world is certainly not a person distinct from
the -World, what reason then can there be to sup
pose that the Spirit of God, which is contrast
ed with it, is a person distinct from God?
There is another illustration of the truth on
this point, given by our Saviour himself, which
is still more striking and beautiful. You will

find it in his conversation with Nicodemue, on
the new birth, in John iii 8, " The wind blow-
eth where it listeth, and thou nearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born
of the spirit."
Now, Mr. chairman, my friend on the other
side will not deny that, in the original, the first
word of thiB remarkable sentence translated
" the wind," is the same as the last word, which
is translated " the spirit." We have here, then,
an illustration of the truth, as I hold it, against
my brother, given by Jesus himself, probably as
plain and as clear an illustration as such a sub
ject, admits of. Look at it ; consider it a mo
ment. The air is an invisible something, by
which we are surrounded, and which we must
inspire continually in order to live. When this
air is put in motion, we call it wind ; we hear
it, we feel its pressure upon us, and are much
more conscious of its presence and effects than
when it is still. But how the motion of the air
commences, we do not fully know — whence the
wind cometh and whether it goeth we cannot
tell. Now, as our Saviour more than intimates,
the case is the same in the regeneration of man.
God is a Holy Spirit, invisible, but everywhere
present. " In him we live and move and have
our being." The dependence of our physical
being upon the air, for its continuance, is not
more entire than is our dependence upon God
for the continuance and growth of our moral
and our spiritual being — the life of oux souls.
When' we cease to inspire from God, we are
spiritually dead. The ordinary influence of his
Holy Spirit upon us, we are (too many of us,)
no more conscious of than we are of the life-
sustaining power of the air upon our mortal
bodies ; but whenever his Holy Spirit moves es
pecially within us, or upon others within the
sphere of our observation, we see and feel and
own its presence and effects, but we can no
more, in this case than in the other, always, if
ever, tell how or why that spirit began to move
and operate upon us or others, just when and as
it did. It seems to me, sir, that the analogy be
tween the two is perfect ; and our Saviour's il
lustration shows, as plainly as anything can be
shown, how we are to understannd all that class
of texts quoted by Mr. Lee, in which God is
spoken of as sending his spirit, or pouring out
his spirit, or in anywise operating by his spirit,
or the spirit, or the holy spirit.
But my friend insisted, the other evening,
that the personal actions attributed to the holy

110

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRII"

spirit, the works said to be performed by it, such
as creation, the working of miracles, &c.; are a
proof of its proper individual personality. But
such an argument might be urged with equal
propriety and force to show, that the mind or
spirit of a man is a person distinct from the
man whose spirit is spoken of. The mind, the
soul, the spirit of a man is the higher part^of
his nature ; it is capable of great and impor
tant operations, such as reasoning, reflecting,
forming designs and carrying those designs into
execution. Now these are certainly personal
actions. Does, then, the attributing these ac
tions to the mind prove the mind, the spirit, to
be a proper person, separate from, or in any way
distinguishable from the person ? Does not ev
ery one understand that the personal responsi
bility, the praise or the blame due to these ac
tions, must and will attach to the person by
whose mind or spirit they were performed?
Even man, you see, is a being of whose whole
personality we do not often speak when we are
describing his actions. Sometimes we allude
to his muscular strength, or his animal courage.
which would be nothing, indeed, if it were not
quickened by his soul — his spirit. Then we
speak of his affections and passions, which are,
by many, supposed to reside in the region of his
heart, because of the commotion they cause in
that organ ; yet these are subject to the control
of his reason and conscience, nay, even to his
will, and that to such a degree that their in-
tensest emotion shall not, if he chooses, quicken
the pulsations of the heart.
And agajn, we often speak of a man's intel
lectual genius, of his skill in mathematics, his
power in logical argumentation, his inspiration
in poetry, or, better yet, of his benevolent or
his devout spirit. Now, sir, are all these differ
ent properties or manifestations of the man, to
be regarded as so many separate persons includ
ed in his human unity ? Why not, Sir. if my
brother's argument to prove the separate per
sonality ot the spirit of God, be a sound argu
ment ? If we often find it necessary to speak,
even of the finite creature man, so as to imply
only the action of a part of his whole being,
how much more may we be often obliged, when
we speak of the Infinite Jehovah, to use lan
guage that will apply only to one or more of
his attributes, or one or more of his manifesta
tions! My friend says, the work of creation is attri
buted to the Spirit of God : and therefore con
tends that the Spirit of God must have a per

sonal existence, distinct from God. Strange in
ference. As much as to say that the manifesta
tion of his power and wisdom proves that there
must be another pejson to whom those divine
attributes belong. Sir, the arguments of my
friend to show the deity of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, if sound, would strip the Father of
all his attributes and manifestations, and leave
him nothing but naked personality, if, indeed,
he would be anythirig more than a nonentity.
Mr. Lee quoted a number of texts in which cre
ative power is attributed to the Holy Ghost. .1
need not repeat them. It would take up too
much time, and then I do not deny what they
declare, for by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, or
Holy Ghost, in all those instances I understand
either God himself, or the manifestation of one
or more of his attributes, as the case may be.
Thus am I obliged to interpret such passages,.
or else, according to Mr. Lee's method of proof,
acknowledge that there were a number more
persons, by whom the heavens and the earth
were made. I ask you, sir, I ask my friend Lee,,
to look again at thia matter in the light of oth
er Scriptures. The work of creation is attri
buted, not only to the spirit of God, but to the
word of God, to his breath, to his fingers, to his .
hands, to his wisdom, to his understanding, to
his knowledge. Here the declarations of the
Psalmist, of Prophets, of Apostles. 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." Job, xxvi. 13, " By his spirit he
hath garnished the heavens ; his hand hath
formed the crooked serpents." Job xxxiii. 4,
" The Spirit of God hath made me, and the
breath of the Almighty hath given me life.""
Ps. viii. 3, " When I consider thy heavens the
work of thy fingers, the moon and stars which
thou hast ordained," &c. Ps. cxix. 73, " Thy
handshake made me and fashioned me." Prov.
iii. 19, 20, " The Lord by wisdom hath founded
the earth ; by understanding hath he establish
ed the heavens ; by .his knowledge the depths
are broken up and the clouds drop down the
dew." If I could argue on these expressions as Mr..
Lee did the other evening, upon kindred ones
respecting the Spirit of God, I should say, how
could the Lord have founded the earth by wis
dom, unless wisdom was a person who could do
such a mighty work? How could the Lord, by
understanding, have established the heavens,
unless understanding were a person powerful
enough to put up the pillars upon which, in an- -

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

Ill

other part of Scripture, they are said to rest ?
And how could he, by his knowledge, have bro
ken up the depths, unless knowledge were a
person who could descend aud do that work ?
All this would seem to you, perhaps, as it does
to me, egregious trifling with the sublime lan
guage of the sacred writers, and yet, wherein is
it more trifling than some of the comments my
brother made upon several of the texts he urged
upon us the last evening as proofs of the per
sonality of the spirit. See his comments upon
Ps. civ. 30 ; Ps. cxxxix. 7-10 ; Is. lxi. 1 ; Luke,
iv. 21 ; Ezek. iii. 12-14.
MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.
When I sat down I was about noticing Mr.
May's comment on Melchisedec's case who was
without father or mother, as a parallell with
the case of Christ's miraculous conception.
But it bears no analogy to the account of
Christ's miraculous conception by rhe Holy
Ghost. It cannot even serve to explain the
sense of the record, because he rejects it as an
interpolation. For him to deny the record,
and then quote such a text to explain away its
,force, is really trifling.
6. Hfe contended that he was a man arid
therefore was not miraculously begotten. This
is trifling, for a human being could bu begot
ten by the power of the Holy Ghost. I con
tend that he was an entire and perfect man, it
is fundamental to my argument. Why then
does he so repeatedly quote bis proof texts
that he was a man ? I admit it. Let him
rest on this admitted fact that he wai a man,
and prove from it, if he can, that he was no
more than a man. But instead of proving
from the fact that he was a man, that he could
be no more than a man, he proceeds every time
to repeat his proofs that he was a man. Let
me show up his logic on this point. He argues
in a circle. He was only a man because he
wds not miraculously begotten, and he was not
miraculously begotten because only a man.
7. He has plainly denied the record, and de
clared that those portions of Matthew's and
Luke's gospels which treat of the pedigree,
conception and birth of Christ, are interpola
tions and false.
He rests this upon the statements of Dr.
Priestly, whom he says has proved that the
corruption was detected and exposed by the
Ebionites. !

Mr. May said— I quoted Jerome in proof of
that. Mr. Lee — Vou did not quote Jerome.
Mr. May— 0 yes, I quoted his very words.
Mr. Lee— From Dr. Priestly, who may not
be reliable. i
Mr. May — He is a true man.
Mr. Lee — I dont know that — We shall see
about it.
I. Dr. Priestly has proved no such thing. :
He was himself a materialist, and denied the ,
immortality of the soul.
Mr. May said — Will you give your author
ity for that.
Mr. Lee — I will before I get through.
2. The Ebionites were a class of corrupt her-
itics which arose in the second century.
Their history is this. A portion of the
Christians held to the law of Moses and con
tinued to practice Jewish rites. This was tol
erated, until the final destruction of Jerusalem
by Adrian, who enacted the most severe laws
against the Jews. Then the real believers in ,
Jesus Christ abandoned all Jewish rites, so as
not to be confounded with the Jews, against
whom those severe laws were directed-. Thisi
brought a separation, and those who would not;
abandon the Jewish ritual, became a sect, called
Nazarenes. They then divided again, and a sect split off
from the Nazarenes, called Ebionites. The
Nazerenes held to the miraculous conception of
Christ, but the Ebionites denied it, and placed
h'.m on a level with Moses. This is the sect
whose authority Mr. May plead through Dr.
Priestly, in proof that the account of the con-
C3ption aud birth of Christ is a forgery.
Now, what did they believe. They held that
the ceremonial law of Moses was binding, not
only on the Jews, but on all the Gentiles on
becoming Christians.
They received with an equal degree of vener
ation, the superstitions and ceremonies which
the Pharisees had added to the law of Moses.
They held all these to be binding.
They held only to the inspiration of the
Books of Moses, and rejected all the prophets,
and the Psalms, and held the name of David-
and Solomon in contempt.
They rejected all of St. Paul's epistles, and
treated them and their author with eontempt.

112

DISCUSSION OF THI DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

They held several books as Christian Scriptures,
which do not belong to our New Testament;-
one of which was called the travels of Peter.
They either rejected or never had the gospels
by St. Mark and Luke. They had the gospel
of St. Matthew, omitting its first two chapters,
and corrupting it in other places. That this
portion was stricken out by them, and not ad
ded by the orthodox Christians, is clear from
this fact, they and the ¦ Nazarenes separated
from' the body of christians together! They
afterwards divided, and the copy of the gospel
used by the Nazarenes, was entire and that of
the Ebionites was wanting the first two chap
ters. For the proof of all these points, I refer you
to Mosheims 'Church History, Part II. Chap.
V. History ' of Christianity the first three
Centuries. By Mosheim. Another and new
work, by the same author. Buck's Theolog
ical' Dictionary, Article Ebionites— Neander's
Planting and Training of the Church ; Book
rVl'Ohap. I. I will also refer you to Hors-
ley's Tracts. In which Dr. Horsley, grappled
with and demolished Dr. Priestly on the sub
ject. Vou now see on what baseless ground,
Mr. May dares to lay his hand upon and muti
late the gospels of Matthew arid Luke.
This confirms what I said a number of eve
nings ago, that he who will affirm that a given
doctrine is more clearly revealed in the Scrip
tures than any others doctrine, and yet that he
does not believe it, does not believe any . thing
because it is in the Scriptures. Now you see
plainly, that when a doctrine is undeniably
fonnd in the Scriptures, which he is not dispo
sed to believe, he rejects that portion of the
Scriptures itself.
Tet on the last evening he complained of me
for representing him as treating the Scriptures
lightly. He has left the shore and is wading
out- into the dark and uncertain waters of scep
ticism ; and when I point to the fact, he sends
back a complaining echo, that I remind him
and you of bis position, and progresses on, fur
ther and deeper, complaining still that I point
to the direction in which he is going before he
is lost from view in the cheerless and visionless
waters of infidelity.
The manner in which facts have been drawn
out of him, furnishes clear evidence that the

argument is lost, as -a Bible question, in': his"'
own estimation. He would never have commit
ted himself against the Scriptures, could he'
have escaped my conclusions without denying! ,
portions of them.
In New England this has become a striking
fact in the history of Unitarianism. A por
tion of that sect, have gone off farther and far- .
ther from the, truth, denying and rejecting the,,
inspiration of the Scriptures because they do -
not sustain their views. Another portion, are
drawing back from this tendency of their system, .
and are rallying more to the orthodox stand
ard. Mr. May has, .quoted to you numerous or
thodox authorities. Now on this point I will give
one. It shows that Unitarian writers are com
ing back to the truth. , The work I hold in my
hand is published.by the Unitarian Association.
It is by authority. The writer is Mr. E. H.
Sears, I quote from Chap. viii. on "The
Mediator." " The theology of the New Testament in
volves three leading ideas, all of which centre
in the person of Jesus Christ.
. "First, there is a perfect and glorified human
nature, exhibiting in its changes from its hu
miliation to its exaltation all the possible vir
tues, graces, and excellences' that belong to our
human condition. i -
" Secondly, there, is the Divine mature in .
its paternal benignity, infinite wisdom, and uni
versal and unchanging love, contrasting with
the dark and partial conceptions of God which
prevailed among Jews and Gentiles.
'" Thirdly, there is the union of these two in
Jesus Christ, so that in him are revealed at the
same time a perfect humanity and the all-per
fect Divinity.
" It is no example of mere human nature,
however sublimated and exalted, that satisfies
our wants as sinful men. No finite power and
influence can create us anew. No models of
human virtue, however pure and perfect, are
to regenerate and save us. Rather do they
dazzle and mock us with ideals which we can
never realize ourselves. I may fix on them my
earnest and despairing gaze; but there aloft
they shine and shine in vain, giving me gleams
of a region of purity and peace which I cannot
climb to, and which fall upon my unsunned and'
frozen nature 'like the shimmer of moonbeams
upon a mass of snow. Christ has placed be
fore me an example of human perfection, and
told me to follow in his steps. And is that
all? If that be all, it were like standing on
the shore and' helping a drowning man by mere
ly shouting to him to rise and walk the waves.
In our fallen, sinful state, it is not first and

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

113

chiefjy an example that we want. We want.
God. We want Divine succor and , influence,
coming within us with creative power, not
primarily to bring us into conformity with
some modelithatis placed before us, but to re
vive the Divine image. within us, so that by its
own radiation it shall produce around us the
hale of all Christian virtues and graces. ,
" The New Testament writers are careful to
inform us that the man Christ Jesus had no
human father, but that the Holy Spirit, itself
descended into this world and took its normal
clothing of flesh and blood and its expression
in the human form. They put this fact in the
foreground of the Christian theology, for by
this fact they make the Authbr of Christianity
not an inspired prophet, but a Divine Man.
The prophet is inspired to utter his message,
and that done he is like other men. Christ
was not inspired after birth, but the effluence
of the Divine nature formed the inmost princi
ple of his natural being, so that his njost com
mon words and works had their ground in the
ingenerating Divinity. The natural life of
Christ tieoaine hence the expression of God,
and the influence proceeding from him the effu
sion ot the Holy Spirit.
" St. John asserts tbe same truth in descri
bing the Divine Word made flesh, that is,
brought down into the conditions of mortal
existence and clothed in human form. He is
asserting the ground of Christ's plenary au
thority and wisdom, and this he does by descri
bing. these fleshly surroundings as enfolding the
Divine wisdom., life within life, — the infinite
become visible in the finite, not by being super
induced upon Christ by special gift, but by
forming the inmost principle of his natural
being. -Nothing less than this satisfies the
record of the supernatural conception by Mat
thew, or of the Divine incarnation by John.
" We lay off all the theories of the school
men pertaining to the mode of union between
God and Christ. We forget all the disputes
of the sects upon this question. We recognize
the fact that such a union, though it may in
volve mysteries, involves no contradictions
We do not stop at what is mortal and finite in
the fact of the Divine incarnation ; we do not
even see the, finite, but look through it as we
look through glass to see the sun ; and then
the Divine nature unveils itself to our longing
vision, and out of Jesus Christ comes the un
clouded blaze of the Godhead !"
Now I furnished my friend with one Unita
rian authority.
Yes, said Mr. May, and a good ope too.
• In my appeal to the early history of the
Church, I shall not classify my authorities ac
cording to the several points I have argued, as
the divinity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit,

but apply them where they belong as I quote.
My extracts of course, must be few and
brief. I will name each author, and age in which
he flourished, and the source from which I quote
him. St. Clement was cotemporary with Paul,
Peter and John, and suffered martyrdom. A,
D. 100.
He says, " Christ is theirs who are humble,
not who exalt theiriselves over his flock. The
Sceptre of the Majesty of God our Lord Jesus
Christ, came not in the show of pride." — 1
Epis. to Cor. Sec. 16.
St. Ignatius was cotempoary with Paul
and Peter, and suffered martyrdom A. D. 107.
He says of Christians, " Being united and
chosen through his true passion according to
the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our
God." — Inscription to Epis. Ephe.
" There is one physician, both fleshy and
spiritual, made and not made ; God incarnate ;
true life in death, both of Mary and God ; first
passible, then impassible, even Jesus Christ
our Lord." — See. 7.
" Where is the wise man ? Where is the
disputer? Where is the boasting of those
who are called wise ? For our God, Jesus
Christ, was according to the Dispensation of
God, conceived in the womb of Mary, of the
seed of David, by the Holy Ghost."— See 18.
" God himself appearing in the form of a man,
for the renewal of eternal life." — Sec 19.
" The majesty of Jesus Christ, who was be
fore all ages, and appeared in the end to us." —
Epis. to Magnesians, Sec 6.
In his Epistle to the Romans the expression,
" Jesus Christ our God" occurs twice in the
Inscription. " Nothing is good that is seen ; for even our
God, Jesus Christ, now that he is in the Fath
er, does so much the more appear." — Sec 3.
I glorify God, even Jesus Christ." — Epis.
to Smyrneans, Set 1.
" I wish you all happiness in our God, Jesus
Christ, in whom continue, in the unity and pro
tection of God."— Epis. to Polycarp, Sec 8.
Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and
commenced his ministry under him. . -
He was the minister of the Church at Smyr-

114

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

na, and is supposed to be the subject of the
following reference. — Rev. ii. 8, 9, 10.
" Unto the angel of the church in Smyrna
write : — These things saith the first and the
last, which was dead and is alive. I know
thy works, and tribulation and poverty, (but
thou art rich,) and the blasphemy of them
which say they are Jews, and are not, but are
the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those
things which thou shalt suffer : behold, the
devil shall cast some of you into prision, that
ye may be tried : and ye shall have tribulation
ten days : be thou faithful unto death, and I
will give thee a crown of life."
This was the only church out of the seven,
against which no charge was preferred.
This man of God who had been instructed
by St. John, when he was at the stake ready
to be burned, closed his last prayer thus,:
" I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee,
by the eternal and heavenly high priest, Jesus
Christ, thy well beloved Son, with whom, to
thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, both now
and to all succeeding ages. Amen." — Martyr
dom of St. Polycarp, Sec 14.
The narrative then states that measures were
taken to prevent his friends from obtaining the
remains of his body, for which the following
reason is given. ¦' Lest, says he, forsaking
him that was crucified, they should begin to
worship this Polycarp : not considering that
neither is it possible for us ever to forsake
Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all
such as shall be saved throughout the whole
world, the righteous for the unrighteous ; nor
worship any other but him. For him as the
Son of God we do adore." — Sec 17.
Barnabas was the companion of Paul.
" And for this cause the Lord was content to
suffer for our souls, although he be the Lord of
the whole earth, to whom God said before the
beginning of the word."' Let us. make man af
ter our our own likeness and image." — Epistle
Sec 5.
" The prophets having received from him
[Christ] the spirit of prophecy, spake before
concerning him." — lb.
" Then he clearly manifested himself to- be
the Son of God. For had he not come in the
flesh, how could men have been able to look
upon him that they might be saved ? seeing i1

they behold only the sun which is tbe work of
his hands, and shall hereafter cease to be, they
are not able to endure steadfastly to look ,
against the rays of it." — 16.
Hermas is mentioned by St. Paul, Rom. xvi-..
14. " Salute Hermas. In his ninth similitude
we find the following.
" In the -middle of the plain he Bhowed me a
huge white rock which rose out of the plain ;
and the rock was higher than those mountains,
and was square so that it seemed capable of.
supporting the whole world. It looked to me
to be old, and yet had it a neW gate."
" First of all, said I, tell me what this rock
and this gate denote. Hearken, said be, this
rock and this gate are the Son of God. The
Son of God is, indeed, more ancient than any
creature ; in so much that he was in counsel
with the Father at the creation of all things.
Bnt the gate is therefore new, because he ap
peared in the last days, at the fullness of time,
that they who shall attain unto salvation, may
by it enter into the Kingdom of God." — Sec 2.
&12.
MR. MAY'S SECOND SPEECH.
It may be an interesting fact to you Sir, and
I am sure it will be to my friend Lee, that I
have distributed among the members of my
society and to others in this city, a hundred
and twenty copies of the book he has just been
reading from, " Sears on Regeneration" since
the first of January. And only last week re
ceived fifty copies more, which that gentleman,
(pointing to Mr. T. G. White,) has on hand
and will be happy to dispose of. I have done
all this with some reluctance, on account of the
errors which the book certainly contains — bnt
that reluctance has been overcome by my ad-
miration of the book as a whole — and my be
lief that the circulation of it will do good.
Mr. Lee next charges me with arguing in a
circle — but the circle wants just one half. I
neyer argued that Jesus was not the deity be
cause he was not miraculously born. For, Sir,.
as you must remember, I contended, that if he
were miraculously born, that would not prove
him to be God any more than the miraculous
conception of John the Baptist proved him to
be a deity. I alluded also to the supernatural
birth of Samson and Isaac — and spoke of Mel
chisedec who is said to have had neither father

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

115

nor mother ; and of Adam who certainly had
no human parents, and was called " the Son of
God," and yet never was supposed to be a God.
I am utterly at a loss to know, where Mr.
Lee got his authority for asserting, that Dr.
Priestly did not belive in the immortality of the
Soul. That great man was a materialist, and
may not have believed in the natural immortal
ity of the Soul ; — but he had a strong and
lively faith in that doctrine, based upon the
ressurrection of Jesus Christ, where Saint Paul
placed it.
Mr. Lee — did he not believe in the sleep of
the soul.
|fc Mr. May — I suppose he did ; and that at the
last day man shall be brought to life again, as St.
Paul seems to teach in his *¦ epistle to the Cor
inthians." Mr. Lee — Can immortality die or sleep ?
Mr. May— It was I believe Dr. Priestly's
view that the soul does sleep until the resurrec
tion. But, Sir, much as we may be startled and
offended at the doctrine of materialism — Dr.
Priestly was one of the purest and best of men
• — a man of great scientific attainments, and a
diligent student of the Scriptures and of eccles
iastical history. I could, Sir, if this were the
time and place, bring the highest testimonials
to his excellence of character, given by men,
who differed as widely as possible from him in
his theological faith.
But let us turn to the subject of our discus
sion. One reason, Mr. Chairman, why the readers
of our English Bible have, so many of them,
been misled on the subject we are now consid
ering is — that the phrases Holy Ghost, and
Holy Spirit always, and Spirit of God gener
ally and the word Spirit often, are printed in
our translations with capital initials, as if they
were proper names, or the names of persons.
I know not on what authority this was done,
or with what more propriety than would have
been shown, in printing the words breath, hand,
fingerg, wisdom, understanding, in the same
way, where they are put for the agents or in
struments of God. Now, this never ought to
have been done excepting in those few cases
where the phrase is obviously put for God him
self. The Greek phrase meaning, Holy Spirit

— to pneuma to hagion is in the neuter gender ;
and is not printed in the original, as if it were
a proper name.
Mr. Lee stated in the opening of his argu
ment, that the points to be proved by him were,
that " the Holy Ghost is of one substance,
power and eternity with the Father existing,
personally distinct, yet in unity of the Godhead ."
You Sir, and the audiences that have attend
ed so diligently upon this protracted discussion
must understand that I do not deny, and never
have denied the Holy Spirit. I believe Sir,
that God the Father is a Spirit, holy beyond
thought, and the fountain of holiness to all who
receive him. Of course I do not deny that his
Spirit is of the same substance, power and
eternity with himself, for his spirit is himself,
in the highest sense. What I have denied from
the first and persist now in denying is that the
Spirit of the Father does or can exist personal
ly distinct from him ; so as to be with any pro
priety addressed or thought of as a distinct per
son. If my brother's proposition be trne, then
the Father must have a Spirit besides the Holy
Spirit, or else he must be a person without a
Spirit. If I understand my friend's answer to
my question the other evening, he believes that
the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity,
Jesus Christ had a human soul as well as a
body, and that his perfect humanity still exists
in inseparable connection with the Godhead.
We have then in the Godhead, according to my
friend's faith, if I understand it— wa have the
Father with a spirit peculiar to himself, and
the Son with a perfect human Spirit peculiar
to himself, om\ the Holy Spirit, So that three
persons and m^e spirits compose the Godhead.
All this, my friend's proposition involves, or else
I have wholly misunderstood his statements,.
his arguments and his answers to my questions.
If he could show me this most incomprehen
sible doctrine unequivocally declared in the
words of Jesus, or of one of his apostles, I
should not set about to scrutinize and question
and expose it as I have done and must yet do — ¦
regarding it as I do a sheer invention of the
platonizing Christians of the 3d and 4th cen
turies. In my first speech this evening, I gave yon
some illustration of the principles of interpreta
tion, that must needs be applied in the exam-

116

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

inajion of the passages of Scripture adduced
by Mr. Lee. Let us now apply them to as
many as time will allow.
I pass over the first point of his argument
and the texts quoted to sustain it, because
have already shown more than once in the
course of our discussion, that the bestowment
of tnany of the names of God upon his angels,
prophets, messengers, was not uncommon
amongst the Jews — and merely implied, that
they represented his authority, acted on a com
mission from him, or were sent to signify his
purpose or will at some important crisis. If
such exalted names were sometimes given to
ministers af his will, surely they may be given
to his own Holy Spirit, which is as much him
self as a man's spirit is himself — without giving
the slightest countenance to the idea that there
fore his Spirit is a person distinct from himself;
Mr. Lee adduced Exod. xvii. 7. And he
called the name of the place " Massah and Me
ribah" because there the children Of Israel
tempted the Lord. The Lord here spoken of,
my friend thinks, the author of the Epis. to
the Hebrews has shown to be the Holy Ghost
iii. 7-9. " Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith
— to-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts, as in the provocation — <fee., your
fathers tempted me, proved me and saw my
works, &c." Now, here the writer to the
Hebrews does not say, that the Jehovah they
tempted was the Holy Ghost, nor does he quote
the passage in Exodus ; he is quoting a passage
which you will find exactly as he quotes it, in
Ps. xcv. 7-9, and he introduces the jgHiotation
'• as the Holy Spirit saith." If you will turn
to the Psalm, you will see that the Holy Ghost
is not so much as nientioned there — but Jeho
vah only. Neither in Exod. xvii. 7, is any
thing said about such a person as the Holy
Ghost. The, Lord only is mentioned there.
He was the person, whom the people of Israel
tempted and proved forty years — and the apos
tle ascribes what Jehovah spake by the Psalm
ist not to another person, but to the inspiration
by which the Psalmist wrote as he did.
I pass for want of time over several less im
portant text to Acts v. 3, 4, where the conduet
of Ananias is. called in the former verse, lying
to the Holy Ghost — and in the latter verse it
is declared to be lying unto God. And my

brother added With great emphasis— the HOly
Ghost then is God. Certainly I reply he is,
but not a distinct person from God. It was
the spirit of God in the apostle, Which enabled
him to perceive at a glance, that Ananias had
been lying, and he attributed that discovery
not to his own sagacity, but to that wisdom
which he had received from. God.
There are several other instances, quoted by
Mr. Lee of passages relating to the same event
where in one, the thing is said to have been
done by God and in the other by the Holy
Spirit. This proves exactly the reverse of
what my friend has labored so hard to estab
lish. It proves that God and the Holy Spirit
are the same person, not distinct persons — just
as much as a passage that I have already quo
ted — " by the word of the Lord are the Heav
ens made and all the host of them by the breath
of his mouth ;" proves that the word of the
Lord and the breath of his mouth are the same.
Mr. Lee next quotes 2 Tim. iii. 16. " All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor- ¦
rection, for instruction in righteousness. He
then brings forward quite a number of instan
ces in which it is said, " The word of the Lord
oame" to pne and to another of the prophets,
and then be clinches his arguments by 2 Pet.
i. 21, where it is said, " the prophecy came not
in old time by the will of men ; but holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost." Only think of such an argument Sir,
as this to establish such an incomprehensible
proposition as the one he announced, that " the
Holy Ghost exists personally distinct from
God." Why, sir, I should quote the passage to show
that they are identically the same. If the Apos
tle had said, " holy men of God spake as they
were moved by his spirit, Or by him," the sense '
would have been precisely the same it is now —
would it not ? And yet, because our translators
used the phrase, Holy Ghost, and the editors of
the Bible have had the words printed with a
capital letter at the beginning of each, lo ! we
are to believe that a distinct person is spoken of.
Why, sir, if I did not know Mr. Lee to be pro
foundly in earnest in this discussion, I Bhould
think he was trifling.
We come now to the second head of his argu-

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

11T

ment. He says personal actions are, throughout
the Scriptures, attributed to the Holy Ghost,
Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God ; and many of
the same actions are elsewhere declared to have
been performed by God.
Gen. i. 2, 3, in the one verse 'tis said, " The
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the wa
ters," and in the next, " God said let there be
light ;" so my brother argues, here is* a clear dis
tinction of persons : one moving upon the face
of the waters, the other saying, " let there be
light." Does this so appear to you, Mr. chair
man ? His inference seems to me just as irra
tional aa it would be to read Isa. i. 10, " Hear
the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom ; give
ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Go
morrah ; and then argue that two distinct per
sons were here introduced — the Lord and God.
But I hav6 already, in my former speech, consider
ed this mode of reasoning, and can only add, let
every person of common sense look at it for him
self, and see if there be any soundness in it.
I pass over his comment upon Ps. civ. 30,
which needs no reply, and come to what he says
npon Ps. ciii. 7, " Whither shall I go from thy
Spirit," or, " Whither shall I flee from thy pres
ence." Upon this beautiful exclamation of the Psalm
ist, in view of the omnipresence of God, Mr.
Lee remarks, '-' the Spirit of God, and the pres
ence of God, are represented as two things —
both are represented as everywhere." If I were
disposed to make the most of this strange com
ment, I should say — my brother has now intro
duced into his Godhead another person called the
" Presence of God," for there is just as much
reason for contending that the " Presence of
God" is a distinct person from God, as that his
v Spirit" is a distinct person. I see not how God
can be distinct or separate from his Spirit, any
more than from his presence. It is strange that
my brother, who has read the poetry of the He
brews so much, has not observed that they often
repeat precisely the same idea, in a little differ
ent form of words, so as to impress it the more
deeply. To illustrate this I opened the Psalms at ran
dom ; my eye fell upon lxxxix., which is full of
examples of this peculiarity: I have time but
, for two or three : 3d, verse, " I have made a cov
enant with my chosen : I have sworn unto Dav-1

id my servant ;" 15th verse, " Blessed is the peo
ple that know the joyful sound : they shall walk,
0 Lord, in the light of thy countenance ;" 18th
verse, " For the Lord is our defence ; and the
Holy One of Israel is our King."
To show my brother that the Spirit of God
and the presence bf God are not two things, as
he says they are, I would ask him how he could
go from the one without at the same instant flee
ing from the other.
There is a passage, which my friend has quo
ted elsewhere for another purpose, which I will
ask him to consider in this connexion. It is in
Acts ii. 4, "And they were all filled with the
Holy Ghost and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Here, according to my friend's mode of argueing
from Scripture, are two persons spoken of in
different parts of this verse — the Holy Ghost
who filled them, and the Spirit that gave them
utterance. Of course I consider one and the
same influence to be here spoken of, but I see
not how my brother can refuse to allow that two
persons are here spoken of.
Let us pass to his next, Isa. lxi. 1, " The Spir
it of the Lord is upon me ; because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto
the meek." Luke iv. 21, "And he began to say
unto them, this day is this Scripture fulfilled in
your ears."
Mr. Lee asks, " what was upon him if we de
ny the personality of the Spirit?"
I answer, in the words of the Prophet, " The
Spirit of the Lord was upon him," not the third,
person of the Trinity — not a third part of the
substance, power and eternity of the Godhead —
but the quickening, sanctifying, inspiring influ
ence of God's Spirit.
All I have time to say upon his comment on
Ezek. iii. 12-14, is, that some men, since the day
of the prophet, have been borne on to the dis
charge of a painful and hazardous duty by a
spirit hot within them ; going they scarcely
knew how, and sustained, as they have felt and
acknowledged, by the hand of the Lord, that was
strong upon them.
I come next to Mr. Lee's exposition of the
Baptism of Jesus. Here he finds the three per
sons of the Trinity present in the same scene, in
three distinct personalities, and each acting his
appropriate part.; The Father is head, speaking;

118

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTRNIE OF THE TRINITY.

from heaven ; the Son is coming up out of the
water, where he had just been baptized ; and the
Spirit of God is seen descending and lighting
upon him. Here the three certainly are presents
ed -to our contemplation, so far distinct from
each other that I see not how any one, who has
viewed them in the attitudes in which they are
here presented, can for a moment accept the doc
trine which my friend attempts to support. How
can he now ask any one to believe that the be
ing who' was sitting invisible in the heavens
above, was the being who, in the form of a man,
was coming up out of the water where he had
been baptized, and also the afflatus which, in the
flickering motion of a descending dove, was seen
to come down from above and alight upon him :
that each was the infinite and eternal God — the
same that was sitting aloft in the heavens — the
same, too, as the humble man upon whom that
afflatus was alighting, and that all three were no
more than either one.
But the foregoing is not so unfortunate for
his argument as the next which he adduces.
Matt. iv. 1, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spir
it into the wilderness, to be tempted of the
Devil." " Here," said Mr. Lee, " the Spirit performed
a personal action." My friend could not have
stopped to consider the nature of this action, or
he would not have attributed it to the Holy
Spirit, whom he professes to believe was the
very and eternal God. Now, sir, " God," I say
»it in the words of an Apostle, " cannot be tempt
ed of evil, neither tempteth he any*ian," and
yet Mr. Lee has alleged that the being whom he
calls the Holy Ghost, led Jesus up into the wil
derness to be tempted of the Devil. Surely,
then, he must have been a being wholly distinct
and for ever separate from God, else how could
he have plotted with the spirit' of wickedness to
bring Jesus into temptation ? I must leave Mr.
Lee to reconcile this as he can. The passage
fails every way to give any support to his pro
position — nor only so, but suggests new difficul
ties, which it will be impossible for him to sur
mount without retracing some of his steps.
But my time is out, so nearly, that I can only
say a word upon a passage that I have already
referred to.
Rom; viii. 16, " The spirit itself beareth wit

ness with our spirits, that we are the children of
God." Here, sir, the translators of our English Bible
have given us the neuter pronouns, and we see
the propriety of it. But how would it answer,
as I have said before, to refer to God by a neu
ter pronoun ? The propriety of speaking of the
spirit in this way, and the impropriety that all
would see in speaking of God as " it," shows that
the one is always a person, and the other may be
a property, an attribute, a manifestation of his
mind or will.
NINTH EVENING— MARCH 16.
MR. LEE'p FIRST SPEECH. '
Before proceeding directly with a review of
Mr. May's replies to my arguments, I will add
a word about the work by Mr. Sears. In re- •
ply to my quotations from that work against
Mr. May's views, ha told you that he circulated
a large number of copies of it among his peo
ple. He does not believe its teachings, he says,
but he gives them all the influence he is able.
Is this because he would keep his own views
out of sight, and make the impression that these
are his views ? He may circulate the Bible on
the same principle, for aught we know, unless
he assures us to the contrary.
Mr. May's long effort on the etymology of the
word Spirit, was a waste of time, unless he
thought to divert attention by it.
I admit that it means air, wind, breath, res
piration, life, animation, disposition, &c.
But it has none of these senses when the Spir J
it of God is spoken of.
It also means the human soul ; but it does not
mean the soul when the Spirit of God, Holy
Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is meant.
Now the only question is, what does the word
mean when the Spirit of God is the subject of
remark ?
Mr. May" said — It means influence.
Mr. Lee — What is influence ? Can any man
tell me what it is, except another name for ex
erted power, physical or moral, of which we can
have no idea aside from an operative agent, or
personality. If we were to render it as Mr. May proposes,
in some cases, " wind of God," it would not help
his argument or impair mine. It becoming a
name of something would as clearly imply per
sonality as the Holy Ghost does.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

119

It would read oddly to translate, " The wind
of God, like a dove, descended upon him."
" He that shall blaspheme the wind of God."
Still, the wind of God, as a proper name,
would be just as descriptive of personality as
Holy Ghost.
The wind of God could not be God himself,
any more than the Spirit of God is God him
self. H. Mr. May's criticism on the Greek word,
pneuma, and its pronouns, was equally unfortu
nate for him, as it is wholly unsound.
The word pneuma, the Greek word rendered
Spirit, signifies breathing, breath, respiration, a
blast, gale, air, wind. It is derived from pneo,
to blow. It also signifies any spirit, good or
bad ; the soul of man, the Spirit of God.
Mr. May contended, that as it is a neuter
noun, it cannot represent personality, and that
its pronouns are also neuter, and should not be
translated by " it," and not by " he," as is the
case in our English version. I am sorry to be
compelled to expose so many of my friends
Greek criticisms, but the cause of truth de
mauds it.
The facts are these : the noun pneuma, is neu
ter, and it could be nothingelse, as its first sense
is breath, air, wind.. It necessarily retains its
neuter form when used to denote God himself.
But if this proves anything to Mr. May's pur
pose, it proves that God is neuter, and that he
should be represented by the neuter pronoun, it.
I will give but one illustration of this point.
" God is a spirit : and they that worship him
-must worship him in spirit and in truth:" John
iv. 24.
Here the neuter noun, pneuma, is used to ex
press the nature or essense of God. Pnuema
ho Theos, God is. a spirit. Now, according to
Mr., May's criticism it should have a neuter pro
noun and be represented by " it."
Mr. May said — I did pot say so.
Mr. Lee continued — That is, Mr. May's God
is an it.
Now let ns iook at the word and its pronouns
as it is used to denote the Holy Ghost.
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter, that he may abide with
you forever." John xiv. 16.
This other comforter is the Holy Ghost. Now
observe —

1. This word parakleton, rendered comforter
is a masculine noun, and is represented by tho
pronoun he.
Now, according to Mr. May's own argument,
the Holy Ghost is represented as a personality,
by a masculine noun being employed to denote
him. Mr. May argued that the presence of a
neuter pronoun proved that the Holy Ghost was
not a person. Now, if the want of the mascu
line pronoun proves the absence of personality,
then the presence of the masculine, as here,
proves by parity of reasoning, that the Holy
Ghost is a personality. The first name, borrow-
ed from nature as the best emblem of the Spirit,
in itself invisible and incomprehensible, is neces
sarily neuter, but when the same spirit is de
scribed by another name, that is masculine. This
proves the personality. «
The difficulty in this matter is this. There is
a great meagreness in our language which re
quires that illustrations be employed taken from
things already understood. God himself cannot
convey to us any distinct idea of heaven, with
out employing as illustrations the excellent
things of earth.
2. This parakleetos is another comforter, pla
cing the Holy Ghost on a parallel with Christ,
and making the Spirit an exchange for him.
Christ was a personality, a personal comforter ;
the Holy Ghost was another comforter, whi'ch
must involve the same personality.
3. The very name itself implies a personal ex
istence. Parakleetos, signifies a comforter, guide,
monitoMBstructor, helper and advocate.
It occurs but five times in the New Testa
ment; four times it is applied to the Holy
Ghost, and once to Christ.
" If any man sin we have an advocate with
the Father. 1st John, ii. 1.
" But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things, audbriDgall things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John xiv. 26. (
He shall teach you — " he" ekeinos, is here
masculine. " But when the Comforter is come, whom I
will send unto you from the Father, even the
Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Fath
er, he shall testify of me : And ye also shall bear

120

DISCUSSION ' OF THE noCTRINEOF TH-ETRINITY.

witness, because ye have been with me from the
beginning." John xv. 26, 27.
1, Here the pronoun ekeinos, " he," is in the
masculine. 2. He shall testify of me, and ye also shall
bear witness. They were personal witnesses, he
and ye.
" Nevertheless I tell you the truth ; It is ex
pedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not
away, the Comforter will not come unto you ;
but if I depart, I will send him unto you.'' John
xvi. 7.
Here the pronoun outon rendered he, is in the
masculine. ,
By these few illustrations you may see what
ground Mr. May had to affirm that these pro
nouns are in the neuter gender in the Greek, and
that they should be so rendered.
This ferief exhibit has been made out during
the day, and rests upon a personal examination
of the texts quoted. If Mr. May is disposed to
question my correctness or truth, I will refer
him to Bishop Heber's Bampton Lectures on
the personality of the Holy Ghost, Lecture 2d,
where the point in issue is fully discussed, and
my view maintained, and where the Bishop as
serts that no man with the slightest acquaint
ance with the Greek will deny that the pronouns
are in the masculine gender.
Now, aa Mr. May is a great admirer of the
poets, and considers them inspired, I hope he
will accept him as testimony in this case !
Mr. May — I admire him, as a poet, very
much !
III. In his own exposition of the ]*ly Ghost,
he was no more fortunate than in his criticism.
He say3 it is God himself, or some one of his
attributes. This will not do, as was shown in my argu
ment, which he has not answered.
Take the texts already quoted as examples —
" But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name." John
xiv. 26.
God sends the Comforter.
Does he send himself ?
Does he send one of his attributes ?
He sends the Comforter in the name of Christ.
Does he send himself in the name of one of his
creatures, a mere man, as Mr. May affirms
Christ to be ? ,

MR. MAY'S FIRST SPEECH.
It Mr. Lee had reminded you of all that Ihaye
said respecting the holy spirit, you would have
seen that the remarks, he has just now made,
were wholly inapplicable. I have alluded again
and again to' the fact, that in some instances
the holy spirit is spoken of as a person, by that
figure of speech called by'rhetoricians jeer«<mt-
fication, just as wisdom is personified in the 8th .
of Proverbs. I deny that the holy spirit of God
is a distinct person, of has a distinct personali
ty, just as much as I deny that his wisdom, or
his word has such personality ; but I have never
denied, that the holy, spirit, the word and the
wisdom of God are sometimes personified.
This is all the reply that I deem it necessary to
make to what he has said on this point. You
will see for yourselves, what I have said hereto
fore, in the published Report of this discussion.
My friend expresses surprise, that I should
have distributed so many copies of Sears on
Regeneration among the families of my Church.
He thinks it very inconsistent, unprincipled in
me to have encouraged the reading o* a book,
in which there are what I deem such false doe-
trines. Mr. Lee cannot have read the book, or
his surprise would have abated. I grant there
are some objectionable things in that book, so
objectionable that I hesitated some time whether
to make the UBe of it, that I have done. But
my doubt was overborne by the great amount
of truth that I found in the book, most clearly
and beautifully expressed.
My opponent has really spoken, once or twice,
as if he had unmasked me, dragged me out of
my hiding-place. Why, Sir, I have been as
much above-board, and out-spoken, as a man
could be, ever since I lived in this city. I have
no opinions to conceal. I came not into thiB
discussion to keep back any thing pertaining to
the subject ; but to get as many of my thoughts
out as could be uttered in the time allowed me,
I am anxious to let the community know all
my sentiments and' purposes, and to interest as '
many in them as I may be able to.
The nature of the conception of Jesus Christ,
whether natural or super-natural really had
nothing to do with the subject of this discussion,
still I did not hesitate when called upon to give
my belief upon that point. I gave it promptly
on the spot ; and then on the following evening
gave my reasons for my opinion. I formerly
believed in the miraculous conception. I do
not now, for the weight of evidence appears to

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF 'THE TRINITY.

121

me to bo against the fact. But if new proof
should be brought forward in favor of it, I may
be brought to believe it again ; for I have no
wish but to receive the truth. If Mr. Sears does
believe in the miraculous conception, that is no
reason why I should refuse the good there is in
his book. A large proportion of Unitarians be
lieve the same ; all the Arians of course believe
it, and ever have. Yet they have never seen
and do not now see in that fact, any evidence
of the deity of Christ ; for other men have'been
supernaturally born.
Mr. Lee is very much troubled that I should
distribute a book, in which there are some er
rors. Why, Sir, what book can he point me to,
that is wholly free trom them. The Bible itself
has errors in it. Not only are the headings of
the chapters often misrepresentations of the
contents ; and the divisions into chapters and
verses so badly made as to obscure the sense ;
but there are words, and passages if not chap
ters in it, that are spurious. Nor is this all,
but the undoubted truths of the Copernican
system of Astronomy, and of the science of Ge
ology, are, or seem to be, contradicted.
But notwithstanding these imperfections and
errors, I believe the Bible contains more and
higher truths on the most important of all sub
jects, than any other book ; therefore I circulate
it, and earnestly recommend the reading of it ;
nay, more, the careful and thorough study of
its pages. And I have not a doubt, that if the
Bible were studied more and the creeds less,
there would not be so much regard amongst
men for the theologies of the churcheB, but a
great deal more regard for the requirement of
true Religion.
Mr. Lee, last evening, not only oalled in
question the authority, on which I intimated
my belief, that the original hiatory of the Gos
pel by Mathew contained no account of the
miraculous conception of Jesus ; but he at
tempted by certain quotations from the .Apos
tolic Fathers, to lead you to suppose, that they
and the primitive church held views of the
nature of Christ, similar to his Pwn, though he
did not tell you, that even ,he cannot find, in
the writings of the Apostolic Fathers,- the
slightest intimation of the Deity of the Holy
Ghost. I am so happy as to have in my library moat
of the authorities, to which my friend referred,
and I shall therefore tell you what I have learnt
from the same and other sourceB.
The first disciples of Christ were from among

the Jews. They were versed in the knowledge
of the Hebrew Scriptures, but knew little and
cared less for the philosophies of Greece, or of
the oriental world. They received JesuB of
Nazareth as the Christ or Messiah long expect
ed by their nation, because they were impressed
by the divine wisdoin that came from his lips,
and were astonished at the wonderful works
that God did by him. Moreover they had be
come satisfied, that the Hebrew prophecies con
cerning the Messiah, properly understood, were
fulfilled in Jesus, and that the kingdom he came
to establish was not an earthly dominion as
had been erroneously supposed, but the reign
of truth, righteousness and love As was very
natural, they retained their attachment to the
religious ceremonies and holy times that had
been observed by their forefathers under MoseB.
To this the Apostles made no objections, ex
cepting when they attempted to enforce these
things upon those, who were converted to Christ
from among the Gentiles.
These primitive disciples were called Ebion
ites and Nazarines, both of these names proba
bly given at first in contempt ; the former
meaning poor, low, unlearned persons ; and
the latter being derived from the obscure, des
pised village of Gallilee, where Jesus had Always
lived. There has been, and still ie, some dis
pute amongst theologians whether the two
names were given to the first Christians indis
criminately ; or whether they were differing
sectB. Some maintain that they were — others
insist that tbe Nazarines were the older class
and believed in the miraculous conception of
Jesus, though they had no thought of his being
Jehovah incarnate, any more than other men
who had been supernaturally born. And that
the Ebionites degenerated from them into the
disbelief of the miraculous conception, and
withal became more strenuous for a pharisaic
observance of the riteB and ceremonies pre
scribed by Moses. This is the account of the
matter given by their enemies. But it seems to
me, that the historians do not bear them out in
just such a statement of the facts. Mosheim, in
his learned Commentaries on the History of
Christianity for the first Three Centuries, Vol.
I. p; 401, allows " that at that early period the
denomination of Ebionites was applied indis
criminately to all such Jews, as notwithstanding
their conversion to Christianity, continued to
observe the law of Moses." M. Gieseler's Text
Book to Ecclesiastical History, — a work very
highly commended by the orthodox professors

122

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

at Andover, Princeton, and the Baptist Theolo- Herod, king'of Judea, in the time. of Caiaphas,

gical Institution at Newton,— Gieseler,, Vol, I.
page 62, says "Ever since the council of the
Apostles at Jerusalem, (Act xv.,) there had al
ways been adiffe'renee of opinion on the subject
then discussed, winch led. at length to an entire
separation : some adhering to the views of the
Apostles (Nazarines); Whilst the other party
maintained that the Christian converts, were
bound to obserye the whole Mosaic law, and
that Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary.
These last were called' Ebionites, which seems
to have been originallya term of derision ap
plied by 'the Jews to all Christians alike. ":"
-But what is more Significant of the1 probable
truth on this point is, that Eusebius, the father
of Ecclesiastical History, who flourished about
the beginning of the ' fourth century, and was
accounted the most learned man of his time,—
Eusebius 'speaks only of the JSbioriites, making
np mention whatever of the Nazarines.
" These are properly called Ebionites by the
ancients, as those who Cherished low and mean
opinions of Christ.'' For they considered him a
plain and common man, and justified only by
his advances 'in virtue; anif that he was born
of the Virgin Mary, by natural generation.
With 'thehr1 the observance of the Jaw was aito-
getherrri'eCessary', ag if they could not be saved
olily by faith in Christ and a corresponding life
Others, however, besides these, but of the same
name, indeed avoided the absurdity of the opin
ions maintained Dy the former, riot denying that
the Loirl was ' bOrh of the Virgin of the Holy
Ghost, andye't in like manner,' not acknowledg
ing his pre-existence ; though he was God, the
word and wisdom, they turned aside into the
Same irreligion, as with the former they evinced
great zeal to observe' the ritual service pf the
law." Eusebius p. 112.
"The Ebionites," says Irenaeus, "make.use
of the gospel of Matthew, only." Jerome, w^io.
died A. Di.43Q.8et 80, had seen this Gospel, and
translated it from Hebrew : into Gr^ek ; and
without giving his own, opinion,, says, that '¦ it,
was by !most persons called the . authentic Gos:
pel of Matthew. Theodoret, ',(A. j). 460,) a,
Christian father and an, ecclesiastical historian,,
says concerning, both kinds of Ebipnitcs, that
they received , no other,- Gospel thaa.-thaj^of,
Jtatthe.Wj.^ ^nq; th,ey .did pot consider, the ,,tw^
first chapters as belonging, to^tJie Gospel. Ep-,
iphanius says "the- Gospel of the.JEbionites;
began thus, "It.pame to pass in jhe, days of

the high priest, a person whoso name was John
came baptising with the baptism of repentance
in the river Jordan.":' This Is just where Mark
and John commence their narrative. (The above
facts are fromDr: Priestley's History of Early
Opinions.) The probability" is,- that none of the first
Christians, called Ebionites or NazarineS, be
lieved in the miraculous conception. But that
after a while a part of them, known from the
otters by the name of Nazarines, !came to be
lieve this account of his birth. It was one of a
great many marvellous stories which, at that
early age, were in circulation respecting- the
birth arid' childhood of Jesus. All the'rest of
them were laid aside as apocryphal, by the
framers of the' canon of the New ¦ Testament
Scriptures; and- are preserved in a volume.
called the Apocryphal New Testament, of whidh
here is a copy. The account of the miraculous
conception Was deemed by them no doubt au
thentic. It is well known however that, 'if the
Nazarines did believe ' in our Saviour's super
natural birth, they did not believe in his deity,
or pre-existence.
What' was' the faith, the system of .belief held
by the first Christians, is pretty well known.
It resembled very nearly that which we still
possess in what is called the Apostles' Creed.
if indeed that creed did not originate with
'them.' Little more of ita history is known.'thali
that it was the 'most,1 ancient. Soipe eminent
Trinitarian theologians have attempted to make
it appearj that the Nazarines' belief respecting
the nature of Christ was similar to their own.
jButwe have from Mosheim, one of the most
learned, careful , and caridid of ecclesiastical
Historians, though himself orthodox, the follow-
jing explicit acknowledgment: ' "$orie of all"
the' proofs adduced, from ancierit authors, can be
,said so far to establish the fact (that the' Naza
rines Vliey'ed' in the deity of Christ) as "to'
leave no roqirifor doubt! ' Manifest indeed it is'
that the Nazarines regarded our Blessed Lord
jas of a higher and more 'exalted nature than a
jmere'man ; and that 'they Rooked upon him as
having been begotten' of a virgin by the omnip-'
.otenf- will of th'e Deity, and admitted him to be
Jip a certain. ,sense, the Son of God, endowed
.withdiyirie power! But whether they believed
him to hayej had sin existence prior'',fo',Mary,
:and that God aid man were united in his per-
json, admits pf very considerable doubt. "In
, , ..nil, , - i i !•¦- ._¦¦;¦ ,,,(

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

123

fact, the sense of all the passages that havecantinitsbearinguponthesubjectofthisdiscus-

been brought forward by men of erudition, with
a view to establish this, is very uncertain and
equivocal. On the contrary, there are some
passages in ancient authors which appear to
furnish sufficient proof of the Nazarines having
denied the divinity of Christ." Mosheim's Com
mentaries Vol. I. p. 403.
Dr. Priestley, of whom no one will presume
to speak contemptuously, unless it be one who
is utterly ignorant of his researches into early
ecclesiastical history, which were more exten
sive and profound than those of any other man
of his day, certainly- not excepting Dr. Horse-
ley, if we may judge from their controversy, —
Dr. Priestley shows, by an abundance of quota
tions from the Christian Fathers, that, at most,
the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ had
not been preached before- the iwriting of St.
John's Gospel which was more thin thirty-five,
if not more than forty-five years after the as
cension ; and consequentlythat before that time
the great body of the earliest Christians must
have been Unitarians ; and there is no evidence
that any of them were denounced as heretics,
muoh less excommunicated on that account.
Hear also the testimony of Mosheim :
" The Christian system, as it was hitherto
taught, preserved its native and beautiful sim
plicity, and was comprehended in a small num
ber of articles.! The public teachers inculcated
no other doctrines, than those that are con
tained in what is commonly called the Apostles'
Creed. And iri the liaethod of illustrating them,
all vain subtilties, all mysterious researches,
every thing that was beyond the reach of com
mon capacities, were carefully avoided. -This
will by no means appear surprising to those
-who. consider;: that, at, this time, there was not
the least controversy about those; .capital doc
trines of Christianity, which were, afterwards so
keenly debated in the church ; and'.who reflect,,
that the bishops of these primitive times^were,
for the impst part, plain, and illiterate, men,
remarkable rather for tjiejir J>iety and zeal than
for their learning and' eloquence." Jtypsheim's
History Vol. I. page 183."
Now it is a ver'y significant fact, that although'
the Nazarines were; Uriitariiins'no less than the
Ebionites, or certainly did not believe in the de
ity of Christ, they were never classed as heretics
by the most ancient ecclesiastical writers. In
deed Epiphanius, who flourished, near the end
of the fourth century, is the first, who gives them
that bad name. Thisfactisallfhe more signing

sion,,bepause those who came to be distinguished
from them under the name of Ebionites, were.
condemned, because they would not admit that
any mirapulous conceptions attended the birth
of Jesus, but maintained that he was the Son
of Joseph and Mary ; and because they insisted/
that-it was requisite for every one, who would
obtain favor with God, that he should strictly
observe all the ceremonial laws of Moses. The
condemnation of the Ebionites was therefore, in
effect, the approval of the Nazarines. , | ,
Throughout the whole of, the first century, ,
there appears to have been no idea started
among the Christians, that bore any resemblance
to that of the Deity of Christ, much less pf a
trinity of persons in the Godhead^
I think I have shown in the course of our
disc zssion that there is nothing.in. the canoni
cal books of the New Testament, which would
imply the Trinity, to a mind not already trained
to believe the doctrine. And of the apocryphal
writings of the first hundred years after the
death of Christ, those which were nearest to the
age of the Apostjes, and are of the higheBt.au-
thority have least in them, that favors the in
troduction of this cardinal error.
The Apostles' Creed, to which I have already
referred, is exceedingly to my purpose, on this
point. From the fourth century downwards,
for many hundred ye,ars, it was generally
thought to have been composed by the Aposr
ties. This opinion I believe is generally aban
doned by the learned. (Sep; King's. History of
the Apostles Creed 4th chap, p, 25.) . Still its
great antiquity is not denied ; . cannot be doubt
ed,; "or, that it is a worls; of nearly apostolic
importance. Hear it that you may know what
was the belief of the Primitive Church.
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth : and in JesusChrist
his only Son our Lord, who was conceived 'by-,
the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary,
suffered ,under, Poatius Pilate, was crucified,
dead ,-and buried ; he .descended into, hell (the
grave) ;,, the,. third, day he rose again from the,i{
deadjj he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on '
the right hand of God, the Eather Almighty : '
'fromj ,thenpe he shall come to judge the> quick '
and, the dead. " ,;,
"I believe in the Holy Ghost (spirit) ; the holy -
Catholic (general) Church ; the comuunion of :
saints ; the forgiveness of sins,; the resurrection
of the body, and the ilifeieverlasting. Amen."
Wheijel.is there in this creed, Sir, ariny lari$a_

124

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRNIE OF THE TRINITY.

tion of a trinity of persons in the Godhead 1
Yet this was the formula of the Christian faith
in most of the churches until in A. D. 325, it
was supplanted by the Nicene Creed.
Mr. Lee, last evening, quoted the writings of
Clement and Polycarp ; and I readily admit,
that they are the two men of all others, belong
ing to the age iriimediately succeeding the
Apostolic, whose writings may be relied upon,
in forming our opinion concerning the doctrine
in question.
My friend, last evening,' would have led you
to suppose, Tjy the quotations, which he made,
that these two Christian fathers, believe Jesus
Christ to be God in the same sense, that modern
Trinitarians believe that doctrine. But I ex
pect to show you that the language of these
Fathers agrees very much with that of the New
Testament, clearlydistinguishihg God from his
son and servant Jesus Christ. They do not con
tain a sentence which ascribes supreme deity to
our Saviour — much less one, that ascribes dis^
tinct personality to the Holy Ghost.
I must decline however to follow Mr. Lee
through the Epistles of Ignatius, much more
through the Visions, of Hermas. For as it re
spects the first named, excellent as was the
character and exalted the position of Ignatius,
so much doubt hangs ' over his epistles, as to
which of those that bear his name were really
written by him ; and then of those that are sup
posed to have been his, they have been so much
interpolated, that we cannot know, if we turn
to his epistles, whether we are reading his words
or not. I need'only read to you what is said
by Moaheim, to show you, that we should not
attempt to settle any question about the opin
ions of the primitive Christians, by an appeal
to writings, over wnich there haiigs so much
doubt. "There are yet extant several epistles, at
tributed to him, concerning the authenticity of
which there have been, however, tedious and
warm disputes among the learned, which still
subsist. Of these epistles, seven are said to
have been written by this eminent martyr,
during his journey from Antioch to Rome ; and
these the most of learned men acknowledge to
be genuine, as they stand in the edition that
was published in the last century, from a manu
script in the Mec icean library. The others are
generally rejected as spurious. As to my own
sentiments of this matter, though I am willing
to adopt this opinion as preferable to any other.
yet I cannot help looking upon the authenticity

of the Epistle to Polycarp as extremely dubious,
on account of the difference of style: and, in
deed, the whole question, relating to the epistles
of St. Ignatius in general, seems to me to labor
under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed
with many difficulties." Mosheim's Ecclesiasti
cal History, Vol. I. 112.
And as to the visions of Hermas, from which
Mr. Lee quoted several passages laBt evening,
only hear, Sir, what Mosheim says ot him, and
I am sure you will not blame me for refusing
to spend time in examining his pages. Com
ment, Vol. I. p. 209, " There is such an admix
ture of folly and superstition with piety, — such
a ridiculous association of the most egregious
nonsense with things momentous and useful, not
only in the celestial Visions, which constitute
the substance of his first book, but also in the
precepts and parables which are put into the
mouth of the Angel in the two others, — as to
render it a matter of astonishment, that men of
learning should ever have thought ot giving
Hermas a plaoe among the inspired writers*
To me it appears clear, that he must have-^cen
either a wild, disordered fanatic, or else, as is.
more likely, a .-nan who, by way of more readi
ly drawing the attention of his brethren to cer
tain maxims and precepts, which he deemed
just and salutary, conceived himself to be war
ranted in pretending to have derived them from
conversations with God and angels."
CH. LEE'S SECONDfsPEECH.
I will now resume my notice ot^Mr. May's-
review of the argument respecting the Holy
Ghost. It is said :
" But when the comforter is come whom, I
will send unto you from the Father even the
Spirit of truth, which Tproceedeth from the
Father."— John xv. 26.
Christ here says he will send the comforter.
Does Christ a mere man send God his creator T
My friend says that Christ is a mere man.
He also says that the Holy Ghost is God the
Father. Then does it follow that Christ sends
God the Father according to my friend's argu
ment. And this text is] made to mean that
Jesus Christ a mere man sends God out from.
himself. .
IV. His reply, that the Spirit of God doeB
not imply a personality, and that actions said
to be performed by the spirit of God do not
imply a distinct personality any more than we
imply a distinct personality when we speak of

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

125

the spirit of a man, is entirely fallacious— a
mere sophism.,
Man is a compound being consisting of a
body and a soul ; and when we speak of the
spirit of a man, the mind of a man &c, we
have reference to this distinction.
In the very philosophy of language, when
we speak of any thing or quality as of man, or
of God, neither man nor God is or can be meant
as an entirety. The preposition "of," has but
two significations ; a principal sense which is,
coming out of or proceeding from or subsisting
by as the cause ; and a derivative sense deno
ting possession, as belonging to it. When we
say the spirit of a ma,u we mean, and are un
derstood to mean something possessed by the
man, or belonging to the man. When we say
the Spirit of God we do not mean that, nor
can the language of the Scriptures be construed
fairly to mean any such thing. It expresses a
relation, which involves a distinction between
the relatives.
V. His attempt to dispose of the matter on
the score of figures of speech was equally fruit
less. He talked of the hand of God, the finger of
God ; and he might have talked of the arm of
God. These are figures of speech. But it is no
figure of speech when it is said the Holy Ghost
-descended upon Christ. Or in this case.
" Baptising them in the name of the Father
arid of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
God has no hands fingers and arms, in a lit
eral sense ; but he has a spirit, and there is a
Holy Ghost that has more than a figurative
existence. VII- The small force that his reply appeared
to have depended upon a misrepresentation of
my position, effected by a change of language.
In speaking of my personal, distinction in the
Godhead he constantly said ; distinct, or " per
sonally distinct from God.
I used no such language.
Mr. May said — May I ask what your distinc
tion is ?
My distinction is, a distinction of persons in
the Godhead, not distinct/rom God. He seems
to be incapable of reasoning at all on the sub
ject 'without confounding my personal distinc
tion in the Godhead with a personal distinction!

of the Holy Ghost from God,, which is a crea
ture of his own brain !
VIII. His attempt to confound my view by
representing my arguments as making five
elements in the Godhead was trifling for a man
of sense. Hear it. The Father Son "and
Holy Ghost make three ; and he represented
that the human body, and soul of Christ make
two more !
Well now had he nothing else to say ?
The human body and soul of Christ do not
exist in the unity of the Godhead. The hu
manity is united to the Logos, but not to the
Father or the' Holy Ghost.
I have said nothing which implies any such
thing. It was a chimera of his own, got up to di
vert attention or something like that.
VIII. -His attempt to explain away the force
of -the texts I quoted was ineffectual.
The above refutations and explanations leave
his expositions of texts nothing to stand upon,
I will notice one or two or them.
It may be observed that he finds it conveni
ent to notice only a part of my arguments and
proof texts.
In his attempted replies he has skipped about
from to another. Why is this ? Certain texts,
and certain arguments he seems to prefer' noti
cing, far more than he does certain other texts
and arguments.
The ezposition he gave of the Baptisriial
scene described in Matt, iii, 16., 17, claims no
tice. He did not explain this. He represented it
as' an absurdity to suppose that all three were
God, as though I made three Gods.
Now while he denies the representation T
gave as the true one, he 'does not attempt to
tell you what the Holy Ghost was, that descend
ed like a dove. But I have proved to you by
arguments he has not even attempted to answer,
that Jesus Christ was God and that the Holy
Ghost was God, thaD there is,three in the unity
of one Godhead. But he seems determined to
misconceive my views and mistake my language.
Matt. 41. " Then was Jesus led up of the
Spirit." He did not explain this and show that rat
meant something else, but contradicted it; '

126

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

The point is that the Spirit led him. Mr
May denies that the Spirit led! him.
¦" And you will remember that he made great
ado over this matter, as one who had gained
much spoil. To him the idea that Christ was
led up " of the spirit" to be tempted of the
Devil, was exceedingly horrible. Now the
question simply is this. ' Was he led of the
Spirit, or was he not ? Mr. May says it can
not be.' The Evangelist says he was. So then
Mr. May says one thing and the Evangelist
another. And just so he has shown himself,
'ready to deny any thing that he cannot ''ineet
any other way.
That it was really the Holy Ghost is plain
from Luke iv. 1-3. " And Jesus being full of
the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan, and
was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Be
ing forty day? tempted of the devil. And in
those days he did eat nothing ; and when they
were ended, he afterward hungered. And the
, devil said unto him, If thou be the. Son of God,
command this stone that it be made bread."
Perhaps Mr. May does not believe that there
is a devil. I have some doubts about his be
lieving it.
He quoted from James i. 13. " Let no man
say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God :
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth he any man."
He reasoned as though the Holy Ghost or
God was the tempter.
. His being, led by the Spirit was not a temp
tation. The devil alone tempted him, not the
Holy Ghost or God.
I am entirely surprised that he saw not that
distinction. For lack of proper discrimination
Ms remarks amounted to nothing.
I have now but a few minutes remaining. I
will fill up the remainder by reading from Eu
sebius :
" As the mode of existence in Christ is two
fold, the one, resembling the head of the body,
indicating his divinity ; the other compared to
the feet, by which he, for the sake of our salva
tion, assumed that nature which is subject to
ihe same infirmities with ourselves : hence our
account of the subsequent matter may be ren
dered complete and perfect, by commencing
with the principal and most important points
in his history.
" For who but the Father hath thoroughly

the world was— that intellectual and substan- ¦
tial wisdom, and that living Word which in the
beginning was with the Father, before all crea
tion and any production visible or invisible,
the first and only offspring of God, the prince
and leader'bf the spiritual and immortal host
of heaven, the angel of the mighty council, the
agent to execute: the : Father's secret will, the
maker pf all things, with the Father, the sec
ond cause of the universe next to the Father,
the true and only Son of thfe Father, and the
Lord and God and King of *all created things,
who has received^ power, and dominion with
divinity itself, and power and honor frpm the
Father. All this is evident from those more
abstruse passages in reference to his divinity,
" In the beginning was the word, and the word
was with God, and the word was God." " .£.11
{¦Kings were made by him, and without him>
nothing was made." This, too, we are taught
¦by the great Moses, that most ancient 'of all
the prophets, when under the influence of the
divine Spirit, he describes the creation ; and
arrangement of all things, he also informs us
that the Creator and maker of the universe
yielded to Christ; and to nbrie but to his divine
and first begotten word, the formation of all
subordinate things, and communed with him
respecting the creation of man. ." For," says
he, "God said let us 'make man according to
our image and according to our likeness."
Of Him, ' Moses obviously speaks as the
second after the Father, when he says, " The
Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brim
stone and fire from the Lord." Him alsoagain
appearing to Jacob in the form of man, the
sacred Scriptures call by the name of God,
saying to Jacob, " Thy name shall no longer
be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name,
because thou hast prevailed with God."
Whence also Jacob called the natne of that
place the- vision of God, saying, "I have seen
God face to face, and my soul has lived."
" He (appeared in a human body, in -sub
stance not differing from our own nature, at
the commencement of the Roman empire ; per
formed and suffered sueh things as were to fol-
fow, according to prophecy' viz, that man and
God, the author, of miraculous works, would
dwell in the world, and would be exhibited to
all the nations as the teacher of that piety
which the Father will approve. In these pro
phecies, also, were foretold the extraordinary
fact of his birth, his new doctrine, and his won
derful works ; as also the manner of his death,.
his_ resurrection from the dead, and finally his
divine return to the heavens.
" His power is an everlasting power, which
Shall not pass away; and .his kingdom shall
not be destroyed. These passages can evident-
ly be referred to no one but to our Saviour,
that God word which was in the beginning
with God ; called the: Son of God, by reason

understood that Light which existed before 1 0f his final appearance in the flesh

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

istr

" And not only Isaiah but David also, ad
dressing him, says, ' Thy throne, O God, is
from everlasting to everlasting. A sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness and hated in
iquity. Therefore hath God, thy God, anoint
ed thee with the oil of gladness ahove thy fel
lows.' In which words, he calls him God in
th6 first verse ; and in the second he ascribes
to hhn the royal scepti'e, and thus proceeding
after the divine and royal power, in the third
place, he represents him as Christ, anointed
not by the oil of material snbstances, but by
the divine oil of gladness.
" In addition to' all these, as the pre-existing
word of God, coming into existence before all
ages, and who has received the honors of wor
ship, he is also adored as God ; but what is
most remarkable, is the fact, that we who are
consecrated to him, honor him not only with
the voice and sound of Words, but with all the
affections of the mind ; so that we prefer giv
ing a testimony to him, even to the preservatios
of our own lives."
Mr. May's Second Speech.
I wonder if my arguments appear as strange
ly, and seem as inconsistent and unmeaning
when I deliver them, as they do when they are
reflected from Mr. Lee's mind. Why, sir, I do
not know my own bantlings. I can only aver
that I am not conscious of avoiding in my i e-
plies those parts of his arguments that have
been particularly cogent, or those passages of
Scripture that have presented the greatest dif
ficulties for me to resolve. Until the last time
' I have been obliged to follow him as well as I
could, and save as many as I have been able of
his arguments and of his proof texts, in order
to prepare my replies. And I can only say,
that I have endeavored to seize upon his strong
posts, and by carrying them overthrow the
whole. My friend recurs often to what he states as
a fact, that I regard Jesus as a mere man. —
But, sir, that happens not to be the fact. I re
gard him as a man " anointed by God," a man
to whom God gave "his spirit not by meas
ure." I believe, too, that he was perfect in
his character. Mr. Lee has allowed more than
once, that all I have said of the proofs of the
humanity of Jesus was true, and that he be
lieved him to be a man as much as I did. The
Only dispute then between us, is, not about his
being a man, but about the nature and extent
of his union with God.

My friend would make light of what I said
about the baptismal scene, and the temptation
of Jesus. Sir, if I know ever when an impres
sion is made upon an audience, I know that an
impression was made upon many, who heard
what I said upon each of those subjects. Ma
ny here felt with me, at least for the moment,
that'tho baptismal scene was a very unfortu
nate exhibition of the sort of union of the Fath
er, Son and Spirit, for which my friend is here
contending. But Mr. Lee comes and sets aside all I said,
by pronouncing it unmeaning or not pertinent,
and passes sentence with so much assurance
that for a moment I almost think he must be
right; for how can a man be so confident if he
is not surely right?
Let me, however, ast you to look again at
what I said about the temptation of Ohtist.-^-
Mr. Lee quoted the text Math. iv. 1. "Then
was Jesus led up of > the Spirit into the Wilder
ness to be tempted of the Devil" — be quoted
this to prove that the Holy Spirit must be a
person, because here was a personal act said.
to have been done by him. My comment up
on that text was this, and I see not how he cam
evade its force. If the Spirit here spoken of
led up Jesus to be tempted of the Devil, (he
bould not have been the Holy Spirit or God
himself; because God tempteth no man.
M¥. Lee. Well then, what do you Under
stand by the temptation of Jesus ? What spir
it did lead him up to be tempted ?
Mr. M. He was tempted like as we are.—
Every man is tempted, when he is led away by
his own desires, or purposes. Sometimes he
is carried too far by those, that are in them
selves good. This subject really has nothing
to do with the proposition we are discussing ;
but I will say a few words more upon it, even
if I am obliged to omit some things more to
our present purpose.
When Jesus found himself ordained, anoint
ed to do the work of the long expected Messiah,
he was overwhelmed by the weight of the
commission. His Spirit longed to be alone
where he might hold undisturbed communion
with himself and his God. He sought the com
plete retirement of some lonely place in the
wilderness country. In his intentness upon
his high purpose, he thought not of the wants

128

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

of his body; made no provision for them, and'
went far away from the habitations of men
with nothing to supply them. He continued
there, as I suppose, in meditation and prayer,
forty days subsisting as far as he could upon
the scanty food that the wilderness afforded.
Until at last he became exhausted by the in
tense action of his spirit, and hungry for the
food of his body. Then it was that the tempt
ations came to him to use his miraculous pow
ers for the supply of his wants, and to escape
the trials that awaited him. And he cast them
all behind him. But I have not time now to
describe to you what I suppose those tempta
tions were.
The idea which Mr. Lee seems to have of
this occurrence is shocking to me. That the
Holy Spirit, who was as he believes God him
self, should have led Jesus up.
For the reasons, which I gavp you, when I
was last up, I shall pass by unnoticed all the
quotations made by Mr. Lee from Ignatius.and
Hermas, and recall your attention only to the
writings of Clement and Polycarp.
Clement was probably a desciple of St. Pe
ter and a Bishop of Rome. At one time he
was had in such reverence, that his epistles to
the Corinthians were introduced into the canon
of the New Testament. I shall now quote
from his Epistle, — the same to which Mr. Lee
referred, and show you that that early Father
did not believe the deity of Christ, and had not
a thbught of the distinct personality and diety
of the Holy Spirit.
: -Epistle Oh. I. verse 1.— "The Church of God
which is at Rome, to the Church of God which
is at Corinth, elect, sanctified by the will of
. God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ; grace and
peace from the Almighty God, by JesusChrist
be multiplied unto you."
Ch. XI. 16. "Let us consider, beloved, how
the Lord does continually show us, that there
shall be a future resurrection, of which he has
made our Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits,
raising him from the dead."
Ch. XIV. 1. " Wherefore, we being a part
of the Holy one, -let us do all those things that
pertain unto holiness."
Ch. XIX. 1. " The Apostles have preached
to us from our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ

froni God. Christ therefore was sent by God,
and the Apostles by Christ."
Ch. XX. .16. "Have we not all one God,
and one Christ ? Is not one spirit of grace
poured out upon us all?. Have we not one
calling in Christ?"
Polycarp flourished A. D. 108. He had been
a disciple of St. John, and appointed by him
Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. No one will
deny that he is a high authority on the point
in question. Hear a few quotations from his
Epistle to the Philippians.
Chap. I. 1. " Polycarp, and the presbyters
that are with him, to the church of God which
is at Philippi : mercy unto you and peace, from
God Almighty, and the Lord Jesus Christ our
Savior, bo multiplied, (6 verse,) believing in
him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from
the dead, and hatligwenhim glory, and a throne
at his right hand."
I need quote no more from his Epistle for
there is not an expression in it on this subject,
that intimates any other idea of Christ than
his subordination to the Father.
The historian Neander has given an account
of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. He was burnt
at the stake. Before the fire was lighted — he
prayed thus: — "0 Lord, almighty God the
Father of thy beloved son Jesus Christ, through
whom we have received a knowledge of thee !
* * I thank thee that thou hast thought me
worthy this day, and this hour ; to share the
cup of thy Christ, among the number of thy
witnesses." — History page 66.
The reproach of the cross impelled .many of
the early Jewish Ch.ristianSj.t6 favor anything
that should show their Lord and master to have
been a marvellous, supernatural being. One
of the first heresies condemned by the apostles
was that, which taught that Jesus Christ was a
spirit, who had not a real body of flesh — and
the refore did not actually (but only in appear
ance) suffer upon the cross. , So, too, tales
were told, and believed by many, of the won
derful, miraculous powers exercised by Jesus
while yet a little child. Epithets — titles of
great respect and dignity were bestowed upon
him ; but wherever the name of God is given
him, it is manifest from thef connexion, that it
is bestowed in a subprdinate sense, as it had
been customary among the Jews to use it.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

129

The doctrine of the Trinity did not origi
nate with the Jews — nor with the Jewish
christians. Their Christ was a divinely com
missioned man of pre-eminent excellence as an
individual; of supernatural gifts as Messiah. —
They had no thought about pre-existence, or
super-angelic nature. As a whole, those ear
liest Christians had not begun to speculate —
they knew nothing of metaphysics. The im
maculate conception even as we have seen
many of them denied. Their faith seems to
have been simple and free from mysticism ;
such as we still have it in what is called the
Apostle's Creed.
I have adduced these testimonies that you
might be assured, that the Deity of our Savior
was not believed by those who learnt Chris
tianity from his apostles and their immediate
successors. Indeed it was not heard of until
mystics from the East, and philosophers
from the West, with the kindest intentions no
doubt, consented to incorporate Christianity
into their systems.
" The great mystery of Divine existence, as
has been repeatedly demonstrated, if it be true,
is not the great mystery of the Gospel. In the
annals of Egyptian mythology we read of the
unalterable union of Cneph, Phtha, and Neith.
and the Hindoos, had their Brahma^ Vishnu
and Siva — quite as incomprehensible trinities
as that which has been allowed to obscure the
light and confound the wisdom of the christian
world." The great purpose of the Mosaic dis
pensation, developed and perfected as it was in
the Gospel of Christ was to establish in the
hearts of men, the sublime doctrine cf the per
fect unity of God, and the paternity — the fath
erly kindness^-of his character.

great centre of the commercial world) a city
filled to overflowing with every form of reli
gion, whither each land sent its thought to be
made up into something useful, this man oc-,
cupied a very remarkable position." You
may get a very good idea of the state of things
in Alexandria, at the commencement of the
Christian Era, from a recently published his
torical novel, entitled Hypatia, written by an
English Episcopal Minister. In that empori
um of commerce and philosophy, Philo lived.
" He had been a great studen of the sacred
books of the Jews — and with the writings of
Piato, whose philosophy was at that time in
the highest repute at Alexandria, he made
himself intimately acquainted, and completely
adopted the Grecian philosophers doctrines,
unless, perhaps, his opinions were modified
somewhat by the oriental theories respecting
the nature of God, which then enjoyed no
little repute in Alexandria. Philo, either be
cause he did not sufficiently understand the
Jewish doctrines, or because he was not satis
fied with the literal sense of the Mosaic law,
mingled Platonic doctrines with the teachings
of the Hebrew law-giver and prophets."
Probably it was in the mind of Philo, more
than any where else, that the doctrine of the
Trinity was first conceived ; although it was
not fully developed until several centuries af
terwards. In the second century a number of
Platonic philosophers became converts to the
new faith, and were made Bishops pf the
Christian Church. The first of these whose
opinions upon the subject in question can be
aseeitained, was Justin Martyr, who flourished
A. D., 140. He taught that Christ was a God,
though inferior to the Father ; that he made

. This great avowed purpose of what the, all things, but that he did it at the will of the

Christian world professes to revere as the di
vine revelations recorded in our Bible, has been
in in a large measure thwarted, by the corrup
tions that were too early engrafted upon the re
ligion of Christ from the philanthropic schools
of Greece, Egypt and Asia.
" At Alexandria in Egypt, about the time
of our Savior, lived Philo Judseus — a deep
scholar, in an age when deep scholarship was
virtue — and a .profound philosopher, after the
fashion of that day, when every thinker was a
theorizer. Living in a city (at that time the

highest God. The following quotations from
his writings will speak to this point more plainly
than I can. In reference to the God of heaven,
and that God who appeared on earth, he says
(in his dialogues, page 413) " The former is
the Lord of that Lord who was upon earth,
being his Father and God, the cause of his ex
istence, and of his being so powerful, and
Lord and God." He had already said on the
252 page of the same volume, " I will endeavor
to show, that he who appeared to Abraham,
Jacob and Moses, and who is called God in

130

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

scripture, is different from the God who made
all things — numerically different, but the same
in will. For I say, that he never did any
thing but what that God, who made all things,
and above whom there is no God, willed that
he should do and say." See " James Forrest's
account." For want of time, I pass over the
writings of Irenasus (A. D., 178,) Clement of
Alexandria (A. D. 194) and Tertullian (A. D.
200.) In each of them, although very high
titles and exalted rank are ascribed to Christ,
yet are there not only plain intimations, but
plain declarations that they regarded him as
God only in a subordinate sense. And I have
room only for one quotation from Origen, who
flourished in .230, and was perhaps the most
distinguished theolggian of his age. The prin
ciples of biblical interpretation which this
Father taught, helped greatly to draw out from
the Bible the doctrine, which calumniated in
the mind of Athanasius, or of one who in the
beginning of the 5th century, wrote in his
name. Yet Origen says, " We maintain, that
the Saviour and the Holy Spirit are as much or
even more excelled by tbe father, than Christ
and the Holy Spirit exqel other things ; and
Christ though excelling such and such great
things (as thrones, principalities and powers,)
in essence and office, and power and godhead,
is by no means to be compared With the
Father." See Forrest's Wansfation.
Dr. Priestly in his history of Early Opinions,
and in his history of the Corruptions of Chris
tianity; Dr. Muericher, Professor of Theology
at Marburg ; and the Rev. Mr. Forrest of Ed
inburgh, (not to mention others) have shown
(as clearly as the progress of any opinion can
be shown) the growth and development of this
doctrine of the Tri-une God, from certain
ideas of the divine nature advanced by Plato,
through the philosophy of Philo, and thence
through a succession of Platonizing Fathers of
the Church, until it was stated, in all necessary
detail, in the Athanasian creed, at the begin
ning of the 5th century. The history that
we have of the controversies that agitated the
ohurch through the 2d, 3d and -4th centuries,
shows how strenuously this doctrine was op
posed, in the successive stages of its growth,
by the unlearned Christians, especially those
who had once been Jews. The historian

Mosheim, acknowledges that it is an old'com-
plaint, " that the Fathers or teachers of the
ancient church were too much inclined to the
philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded
what was taught bythat philosopher with the
doctrines of Christ our Savior."
The very learned CudWorth, in hisgreat
work on "The Intellectual System," institutes
a comparison between the forms, in Which the
doctrine of the Trinity was held by th'e hea
then Platonists on the one hand, and by the.
Christian Fathers on the other, " Thus," says
he, "have we given a true arid full account,
how, according to Athanasius, the three divifte
hypostases are really but one God or Divinity.
In all which doctrine of his there is nothing
but wha,t a true and genuine Platonist Would
readily (subscribe to." He further adds that
the generality of the Christian Fathers before
and after Nicene Council,, represent the genu
ine Platonic Trinity as really the same thing
with the Christian, or as approaching So near
to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstan
ces, or the manner of expression." And he
moreover tells us that Athanasius, in his de
bates with his Arian opposers would bid them
go to school to the Platonists-"
There ha3 been no more distinguished de
fender of the doctrine of the Trinity, than Dr.
Horsely in his controversy with Dr. Priestley.
In his 18th letter, I find the following passage :
"lam very Sensible that the Platonizers of the
2d century were the orthodox of that age. I
have not denied this, on the contrary, I have
endeavored to show that their PlatOnism brings
no imputation upoii their orthodoxy." And
again he says : " It must be acknowledged
that the first converts to Christianity, frOm the
Platonic school took advantage of the resem
blance between the evangelic and Platonic
doctrine on the Subject of the Godhead; to ap
ply the principles of their old philosophy to
the explication andTcOnfirmation of the articles
of their faith. They defended it by arguments
drawn from Platonic "principles, and even pro
pounded it in Platonic language."
Even Neander, the author of the " History
of the Christian Religion and Church, during
the first three centuries," which I believe is in
high favor with our orthodox brethren ; even
Neander implies, that what are now usually

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

131

considered the doctrines of the- church, were
not developed until controversies arose ; and
then when the brains of men were stimulated
by the heat of controversy between the old
opinions that had come to them from their
former religions, and the new opinions which
thpy had embraced on coming into the Chris
tian church, in the heat of controversy these
doctrines were thought out and introduced
into the creeds of Christendom. This or some
thing very like this his translator appends,
" is the impression which would generally be
entertained by most of his readers." See the
translator's preface to the id volume.
When Peter (Matt. xvi. 10) said to Jesus,
" Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,"
— our Savior replied, " as surely as thou art
Peter" (which means a rock) " upon this rock"
this fundamental truth which thou hast de
clared, " upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." This was the primitive doctrine of
the gospel; do other doctrine than this was
preached by the apostles, so far as we can
learn from the Book of Acts. The Ethiopean
Eunuch was baptized by Peter On declaring
faith in this doctrine.
For the first two or three centuries, the
" Apostle's Creed" was the creed of the church.
In it there is not a syllable about the deity of
Christ — or a Trinity in the Godhead. '
The Nicene Creed, in which this doctrine is
almost but not quite declared, was introduced
into the church in the year 325. And the
Athanasian Creed about a hundred years after
wards, or near the beginning of the 5th century.
These creeds alone are sufficient to show what
the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was,
and what the doctrine of the chsrch became
under the influence of the Platonizing Fa
thers. TENTH EVENING MAECH 21.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH.
There were a few things said on the last
evening of our discussion to which I wish to
call attention.
I. Mr. May's defense of his conduct in cir
culating a certain hook is peculiar.
' ' 1. His excuse is that though it contains
some errors, yet it contains more important
trnth.

But that book contains three fundamental
errors, according to his avowed theory.
(1) It contains the doctrine of hereditary
depravity, page 19, 41, 43.
(2.) It contains the doctrine of the mirac
ulous conception, with an endorsement of those
portions of the record which Mr. May pronoun
ces a forgery.
(3.) It contains the doctrine of the divinity
of Christ, and asserts that doctrine as the only
ground of the saving power of Christianity.
These are all fundamental.
2. Another excuse which he rendered for
circulating such a book, was that the Bible
itself contained errors.
If the Bible contains such fundamental er
rors, it ought not to be circulated.
Why does he not get out an edition of the
Bible free from those parts which he pronoun
ces forgeries ?
But he referred you to the headings of the
Chapters. They are no part of the Bible.
Mr. May is the only person I ever heard ap
peal to them as proof of any thing.
But this charge that the Bible contains er
rors, is a fearful matter, for until he tells us
where the errors lie, which is true and which is
false, the whole stands impeached.
II. The historical argument demands a brief
notice. 1. His attack upon the eredibility of the
history of those early times avails him nothing.
He begun the argument from history.
He has no other authorities to rely upon
but those I have quoted.
These are the only authority, and of course
cannot be disproved except by their own con
tents. 2. He has failed to quote one passage which
contradicts any thing I have said, or the doc
trine I advocate. But my quotations are ab
solutely inconsistent whith his views.
He first quoted Eusebius as authority. I
then quoted him in which he affirms the mirac
ulous conception, the divinity of Christ, and
the union of God and man in Jesus Christ.
Eusebius was born A. D. 267, and died 339
or 340. His history commences with the birth
of Christ, and closes with the final victory
Constantine, which occurred 324. His is the

132

DISCUSSION OF THE noCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

only entire history we have of that period, by
any early writer.
My friend asserted that the denial of the di
vinity of Christ was not maintained to be a
heresy until the time of Epiphanies, (about
350.) This I will now prove to be an entire mis
take. Eusebius says, Book IV. Chap. xxvi. " Me-
lito wrote a " treatise on the Incarnate God."
He wrote about the middle of the second cen
tury. Again, Eusebius says, Book V. Chap, xviii.
Page 213, 214.
" In a work written by a, certain one of these
authors against the heresy of Artemon, which
Paul of Samosata again attempted to revive
among us, there is a narrative well adapted to
the history we are now investigating. This
writer, not long since, in refuting the heresy
mentioned, which asserts that Christ is a mere
man, since its leaders wish to boast as if it
were the ancient doctrine, besides many . other
arguments that he adduces in refutation of
their impious falsehood, he gives the following
account : ' For they assert,' says he, ' that all
those primitive men and the apostles themselves,
both received and taught these things as they
are now taught by them, and that the truth of
the gospel was preserved until the times of
Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome
and Peter. But that from his successor Zephy-
rinus, the truth was mutilated. And perchance
what they say might be credible, were it not
that the holy Scriptures contradict them ; and
then, also, there are works of certain brethren
older than Victor's times, which th6y wrote in
defense of. the truth, aud against the heresies
then prevailing. I speak , of Justus and Mil-
tiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many
others, in all which the divinity of Christ is
asserted. For who knows not the works- of
Irenseus and Melito, and the rest, in which
Christ is announced as God and man ? What
ever psalms and hymns were written by the
brethren from the beginning, celebrate, Christ
the word of God, by asserting his divinity.
How then could it happen, that since the doc
trine of the church has been proclaimed for so
many years, that those until the times of Vic
tor, preached the gospel, after this manner ?
And how are they so devoid of shame to utter
these falsehoods against Victor, well knowing
that Victor excommunicated that currier Theo-
dotus, the leader and father of this God-denying
apostacy, as the first one that asserted Christ
was a mere man. For had Victor entertained
the sentiments which their impious doctrine
promulgates, how could he have expelled Theo-
dotus, the inventor of this heresy ?"

The precise date of Artemon I cannot state.
Paul, of Samosata, is declared to have been
deposed A. D. 269, Mosheim's Commentary.
Victor was bishop of Rome about A.D. 194.
He deposes Theodotus who is declared to
have been the in venter of the heresy 1.2 6 years
before Epiphanius.
But did not the Ebionites exist before this
date ? They did, but they separated from the
body of Christians and refused to hold fellow
ship with them, because they did not keep the
Law of Moses. They were not regarded as
Christians", were but a very small fraction,' and
soon ceased to exist.
Mosheim's Commentary, Vol. L Page 220.
A beautiful allusion to this fact is found in
the book Mr. May has so industriously circula
ted among his people.
" And it is quite as remarkable, that no sect
or body of men that has received Christianity
only as an abstract system of faith and morals,
and its Founder only as an historical person,
leaving out the living Christ as the ever-present
medium of the Divine energy, has ever worn
for itself a place in history, as one of the great
motive forces of human progress. Such sects
have- only a feeble and transitory existence." ;
, I will now close the historical argument by
remarking :
1. The denial of the doctrine of the divinity
of Christ is referred to in early history only as
a heresy. It is never spoken of by any early
writer as the doctrine pf the Church.
2. It is not and never was the doctrine of
the Church in anj age. ,
3. Those who have advocated it have always
been and still are : a mere fraction. At this
hour Unitarians in this country are a fraction
of less than one to thirty.
III. His exposition of the temptation r of
Christ, demands a brief notice.
He maintains that the Saviour was not temp- i
ted of the Devil. v
The gospel says he was, ,
He was tempted, for Paul affirms he " was
tempted in all points like as we are, yet with
out sin." — Heb. iv. 15.
But Mr. May says the temptation arose
from the suggestions of his own mind.
Then he had the devil within him.
But 'the text will admit of no such explana
tion. If there is any such heiDg as a devii, he must

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

133

have been concerned in the temptation of
Christ, the account is so plain, direct and pos
itive. Matthew says he was tempted of the
Devil, Mark says he was tempted of Satan,
and Luke says it was the Devil.
Mr. May quoted as an explanation —
" Every man is tempted, when he is drawn
away by Lis own lust, and enticed."— James i. 14.
Was Christ tempted by being drawn away
by his own lusts 1
This certainly is less to his credit than to
suppose the devil tempted him.
But my theory is, that it was necessary that
he should be tempted by the devil, and over
come, to make the captain of our salvation
perfect, and for this I have high authority.
" Wherefore in all things it behoved him to
be made like unto his biethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people. For in that he himself
hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to suc
cor them that are tempted." — Heb. ii. 17, 18.
I will at this point leave my friend to fight
his battle with the words of inspiration.
I will now occupy the few moments remain
ing, with some remarks on the doctrine of the
atonement. The occasion for special attention
to this theme grows out of the fact that the
doctrine of the Atonement is generally denied
by Unitarians. For, denying the Divinity of
Christ, they see that there can be no such thing
as an atonement for sin by a mere man ; and
they are driven by a logical necessity to deny
that there is any such Atonement for sin.
I shall first present asd comment upon a few
texts which will give us a correct idea of the
atonement. " Being justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Jesus Christ : Whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission ot sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God ; To declare, I say, at
this time, his righteousness : that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth
jn Jesus." , .
"Redemption" — Greek, apolutrosis, from ap-
oluo, to dismiss. " Ransom, release, deliver
ance from captivity, redemption from the thral
dom of sin. — Groves Greek and Eng. Die.

" A deliverance procured by the payment of
a ransom." — Greenfield.
"Propitiation"— Greek, hilasteerion. " Pro
pitiation, atonement, expiation." — Grove.
" One who makes expiration, a propitiator,
or propitiatory sacrifice." — Greenfield.
The facts are set forth in the text, that
1. We have redemption by Christ who is
our propitiation, that is, the expiatory sacrifice
by which God is rendered propitious.
2. By virtue of this, God can be just, and
the justifier of such as believe in Jesus.
To justify, is to pardon our sins, as it was
for the remission of sins that are past, that
Christ became our propitiation.
3. It is implied that without this offering
on the part of Christ, God could not be just
and justify sinners.
" And if any man sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous :
And he is the propitiation for our sins : and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world." — 1 John 1, 2._
Mr. May's first Speech.
As we have agreed to close this discussion
in one evening after this, there will be scarcely
time enough for me to say what I ought on
several topics that I have not yet touched
upon. I must therefore wholly omit much
more that I intended to say on subjects al
ready considered. Nor can I spend any time
in answering several things that have just now
fallen from my opponent.
Mr. Lee will have it, and he has taken no
little pains to make you believe that I pay no
respect to the Bible ; that I reject its authority,
and fling away whatever I meet with on its
pages, that I dislike. It is useless to repeat
what I have said. If at no very distant day
my friend will furnish the opponent he has
promised me, I will endeavor to show him and
our audiences, what was the origin, what the
true use of our sacred scriptures. He abuses
them as much, who makes them responsible
for false doctrines that they were never intended
to teach ; as he does, who rejects what they
may declare to be true.
Mr. Lee has this evening brought up again
Matt. iv. 1. He first quoted it to prove that
the Holy Spirit must be a person for he was

134

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

here said to have performed the personal act
of leading Jesus up into the wilderness to be
tempted of the devil. I replied that was not
an !act which the Holy Spirit, would or could
do. It would be to make himself as bad as
the tempter. A very common latin adage is
"facitper aliwnfacitper se."
Now, sir, I say again once for all "this pas
sage is a most unfortunate one for Mr. Lee's
proposition every way. If the spirit here
spoken of really led Jesus up to be tempted
of the devil, he could not have been God, " for
God tempteth no man." And if Jesus was
really tempted, of which there can be ' no
doubt, then he was not God, " for God cannot
be tempted of evil." There I leave all I have
to -say on this text, in a nut shell.
There is not time for me here, to explain to
my brother what I suppose the tempta
tion of our Savior to have been. If
there are any here who desire to understand
my views of that matter, I now give notice
that next Sunday evening I will repeat from
- my own pulpit, a discourse on the temptation
of Jesus, that I preached to my church some
time ago.
I know not how to account for the course
Mr. Lee took in his argument the other eve
ning, upon the Trinity' unless he found, as I
forewarned him he would find it, harder even
to prove that three Gods are one God, or that
three persons of infinite power, and perfect
wisdom are but one person, than to prove that
there are three such beings. There is some
evidence of the existence of mprp Gods, thaji
one ; and. the majority of mankind, in all ages,
have believed in a plurality of deities. But
th'e amazing proposition, which my friend has
undertaken to maintain, is, that three such
beings are but one being. I have never denied,
here or elsewhere, that there is a Father, a
Son, and a Holy Spirit. Nor have I denied
that, in a certain sense, they are one. , They
are one in purpose. They co-operate in the
redemption of man, which is the subjeet nut
ter of the gospel. But my friend undertook
to prove that they are one in substance, pp. wo
and eternity ; and that altogether they consti
tute but one God. For six or seven evenings
all his direct arguments , were intepded to
prove first, that Jesus Christ bore all the titles,

and possessed all the attributes, performed all
the works, and received all the worship as
cribed to the Father ; 'so that as I remarked,
if the Father should cease to be, he would not
be missed ; secondly, that the Holy Ghost bore
all the titles, possessed of all the attributes
and performed all the work ascribed to the
Father and the Soil ; so that if they should
both cease to be, they would not be missed.
Well, sir, if those arguments'. had established
what they were intended to prove (which I all
along denied) then it remained for him, in order
to maintain his proposition, to make it appear
beyond: a question, that 'the three persons
named Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — each of
them possessing almighty power, and perfect
wisdom, are riot three persons, 'but one per
son, are not three Gods, but one God. This
is manifestly an essential part of his doctrine.
But what, sir, did he do when he came to it?
Why he attempted -by a sort of logical leger
demain, to put it wholly out of sight, and put
something else in its stead. I beg you to look
attentively that you may see how adroitly it
was done, or rather I should say, seemed to
be done.
He said,' 1st., that he'and Mr. May were
agreed that there is but one God ; 2d, said ho
if has been proved that the Son or Word is
God ; and 8d, he asserted, it has been proved '
that the Holy Ghost is Gbd; therefore, he''
cooly added, itfolloVs that the Father, Son and '
Holy Ghost exist in the unity of the Godhead, '
because we have agreed that there is but one Jl
God; and then wcnt'On quoting texts, which
if they proved anything; to his purpose, proved
that there were three persons, sustaining some
relation to each other — but by ho means, that "
the three are one— that they exist in the same * -
Godhead ; which was the very thing incum
bent upon him to prove.
I by 'no means say that my' friend "was con- '
scious of airv logical trick or unfairness in all
this— or that he cominitted the mistake so fatal' ;
to his argument, called by logicians, "petitio
principii"— or begging the ' question. ' Men
who have trained their intellects to believe,"
that three are one, and pne'is three, may make"'
such' a mistake 'as this unconsciously. But, I
must call Mr. Lee back to perform the hardest
part of the' task he has undertaken, or else1'

DISCUSSION OF. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

135

acknowledge he cannot do it. He stated that
point very clearly, in the opening of his ar
gument on the Trinity, but lost sight of it im
mediately. Let me then give him back his
own wqrds, that he may see in them the im
possibility of proving what he undertook in
this discussion to maintain. v
True, as he says — " he and I are agreed
that there is but one God, and that the person
called the Father is God in the fullest and
highest sense." Mark this, sir, as declared by
Mr. Lee himself he has agreed with me and
I -with him, that " there is but one God, and
that the person called the Father, is God in
the. fullest and highest sense. Now sir, this
presents plainly to my opponent the very point
he should have met, and whieh he must not
tyade. If, as he allows, " The Father is God
iq the fullest and highest sense," then certainly,
I insist, if there be any meaning in words —
any sense in comparisons, no other persons
can he Gods excepting in a lower sense ; and
I -have admitted all along, with St. Paul, that
in a lower sense there may be Gods many and
Lords many.; but in the highestsense,, on y
one God, the Father.
If; cannot justly be required of me, sir, to
spend any of the precious time, that remains
to me in this discussion, in examining the texts,
which Mr. Lee brought forward, to sustain the
position he saw fit to take under this head ; fpr
if he will look at it again, he will see that his
position was aside from the line of argument
he was boundto pursue — and therefore, all his
labor, under that head, was spent fpr naught.
If his argument, from the plural form of the
Hebrew word in Gen. i 26, translated God,
proves anything to his.- purpose, (which the
best, .trinitarian hebrew .scholars deny) it
proves that there, were several Gods engaged
in the creation of man ; not that there are
several persons in the .pne person, whom we
call God.
.And-, again, if it be true, -that; there be in. the
Godhead such a three-fold personality, (or ra
ther I should say such a composition of three
Gods as to make only one) then must there be
inman the same complication of persons; for
in the next verse we are told that, what in the
26th verse the Elohim proposed to, do, they
actually did, i. , e. created man in their own

image. My opponent's friend and helper, Mr.
Sears, agrees with me peifestly on this point.
He says in the book Mr. Lee read from the
other evening, page 68, " If there be a trinity
in God, there would also be a trinity in man ;
that likeness which a pencil of rays out of
his own nature has made of itself and projected
into time. And just so far as it fails of reali
zation in the likeness and the copy, will the
words that describe it be words, and nothing
more.", Mr. Sears had said just before, '' Man
is created in the image of God, and so in man
the creator has abridged and copied out his
own attributes. Were it not so, we could have
no communion with the Eternal Father, any
more than the beasts of the field or the clods
of the valley."
The other texts which Mr. Lee quoted,
Isa. vi. 1, 2, 3, 8, xxxiv. 16, xlviii. 16, 17, 18,
and Haggai ii. 4, 5, 6, 7, do not assert, im
ply, or in any way help to prove that the three
beings, or persons spoken of in them are one
being or person, which is the only thing Mr.
Lee had got to prove. They all lead to the
opposite belief.
Mr. Lee'next summons us again to the bap
tismal scene,. Matt. iii. 16. Here he'says, "we
have, a clear view of the three persons in the
Godhead — the Son coming up from the water;
the Holy Ghost' alighting upon him, and the
Father speaking from heaven." I grant we
have a very clear view of three persons in this
scene, (if the spirit may for the momerit be
considered a person ;) so clearly indeed do we
discover three here, that it is all the more dif
ficult, after this presentation of them, to con
ceive how they can. be numerically or literally-
one, or one in any other sense, than in the in
terest they unitedly took, in the redemption of
the world, for which Jesus was just then an-
nointed. Certainly, 'there is not a syllable in
the wliole account, that declares or intimates
any such unity as my brother contend^ for.
He next"c:Jls our attention to Matt, xxviii,'
19, a passage that Mr. Lee has several times
brought forward in this discussion. I might
here also coutent'myself with saying, that the
text is, good for proving that there is a Father;':
a Son, and a Holy Spirit, whichlnever denied ;'
but it says not a syllable about fhethree being'
one God. It does' not intimate that they are

136

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,

persons co-existent in the Godhead. My friends
comments upon the prsaags more than" inti
mate, they declare that such is the tri-unity of
God. But his words are no part of the sacred
text. I will therefore respectfully lay them
aside, and give you mine in their stead.
Let me ask you to observe, that is in the
the very verse before, that Jesus said, '' all
power is given me me in heaven and in earth."
He was not then the original source of power.
Another higher and mightier than himself had
bestowed upon him, all that he possessed. God
gives to all, but receives nothing from any ex
cept acknowledgments of the gift^hc has be
stowed. As Jesus received his power, he must
have been indebted to the giver for it, and ac
countable for its use. By the holy ghost, as
here used, must have been meant the divine
power manifested in his apostles, as well as in
Christ himself, by which influence and aid the
Gospel then was to be, and since has been,
propagated and supported. " Go ye therefore"
I understand the meaning of onr Lord's injunc
tion to be — " Go ye therefore and teach all na
tions" the Gospel I have lived to declare, and
have died — and risen again to confirm ; "bap
tizing them in the name of the Father," from
whom cometh -every good and perfect, gift ;
" and of the son" through whom this best gift
has been bestowed upon mankind, " and of the
holy spirit" by which its influence is felt, and
shall be more and iriore disseminated amongst
men. For want of time, I pass over his quotation
from Jude 20. 21. the true meaning of which
will be at once seen by those who may accept
the exposition of the text I have just given ;
and of the one I am now to give. This is the
last that Mr. Lee quoted the other evening. ,
2 Cor. XITI. 14. " The grace of the Lord Je
sus Christ, and the love of God, and the com
munion of the holy spirit be with you all." —
How often have I pronounced this benediction
upon the church, to which I minister, without
a thought of the strange, incomprehensible
doctrine, which my friend has invoked it to
prove. In stead of that inexplicable mystery,
which for ages has perplexed the minds of men,
and convulsed the church, — when I pronounce
these beautiful words, I express the hope that
those, who have been my hearers, may enjoy

the favor of Jesus Christ, the benefit of the
instructions of that great Teacher of God and
godliness. I express the hope, that they may
know the Father, whom (o know is life eternal;
and be loved by the Father as his dear chil
dren ; and I express the hope, that the holy
spirit that cometh from God, may so quicken
the spirit in them, that they may be brought
into communion, unity, at-one-ment with the
dear Father in heaven, and his dearly beloved
son, their elder brother.
Here I have gived you a plain intimation of
that unity which subsists between God and
Christ — that unity, into which, Christ lived and
died to persuade us all to enter. This is the
trinity I believe in ; God, Christ, and the Spirit
that is in man. A trinity that would become
a unity all the sooner, if the churches would
uphold, and the ministers would teach religion,
rather than their theologies —Religion ! that
deep sense of dependence upon, and accounta
bility to the Father, which alone can support
and cheer us amid the trials and temptation of
life ; and arouse and impel us to the strictest fi
delity to God — the true, the right, and the good
under all circumstances, in all relations : Reli
gion ! that strong faith in God as the Father,
the impartial Father of all, that shall bring ns
to regard and respect the rights of all men as
his children, snd our brethren. This is the re
ligion which Jesus taught — the religion that is
to redeem and bless the world; the religion
alas ! which has so often been set aside in the
churches to give place to the doctrines and
commandments of men.
Thomas Jefferson, tha author of the Decla
ration of Independence says, in one of his fet
ters to the venerable John Adams — " Had the
doctrines of Jesus been preached always as
they came from his lips, the whole civilized
world would now have been christian. I re
joice that in this blessed country of free inqui
ry and belief, which has surrendered its creed
and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the
genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving."
p. 365. Again he says in a letter to James Smith —
" In fact, the Athanasian paradox, that one is
three, and three but one, is so incomprehensi
ble to the human mind, thatno candid man can
say he has any idea of it ; and how can he be-

DISCUSSIuN OF THE DCCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

137

lieve what presents no idea ? He, who thinks
he does, only deceives nimself.'' — Letters, page
360. ' Mr. Chairman, allow me to mention as a very
pertinent fact, in confirmation of this last re
mark of President Jefferson's, that the three
mightiest minds of England in the 17th Centu
ry, after profound and long continued study of
the Bible, renounced this dogma of the Trinity,
as unscriptural no less than irrational — I allude
Sir — to Milton. Locke, and Newton — one, the
greatest poet ; the second, the greatest meta
physician ; the third, the greatest mathemati
cian of his age — and each of them as great in
his own department as any that ever lived.
Sir, I wish my friend, here, would tell me
before we close this discussion, whether he
really believes this doctrine of the Trinity, in
any intelligible sense ; in any sense capabfe of
being illustrated by any thing in the universe
of matter or of mind. For, Sir, if there be
nothing in us, or without us, perceptible to us,
or conceivable by us, in which he can image to
his mind and to mine this doctrine of the
triune God, then must faith in it be in his case,
as it doubtless is, in the cases of thousands
more, the mere assent of the mind to an unin
telligible and profitless proposition, an assent,
demanded by the authority of the churches,
and feebly supported perhaps by a kind of evi
dence wrung from the Bible, by the peculiar
method of examining that witness, which the
advocates of this Incomprehensibility have seen
fit to adopt.
Let not my brother tell me again, that this
doctrine pertains to the nature qf God, which
onr finite minds cannot fathom, cannot com
prehend, cannot find out to perfection. I grant
all that of course. But I say in, reply — why
then do you come to me with a proposition,
which you insist does declare themode of God's
existence ? You do not give me this statement
in the words of Jesus, or of his apostles, or of
Moses or the prophets. You have no higher
authority for this doctrine than Saint Athana-
nies, or some other platonizing father who lived
in the 4th or 5th Century of the Christian Era.
If you can show me that God has by any of his
messengers, announced this doctrine to the
world, as a sublime mystery, not to be under-
10

stood, but yet to be adored as a truth, I shall
submit — but when Mr. Lee or the writers of
the 39 Articles of the Episcopal Church, or of
the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, come to
me with this dogma, couched in language more
or less offensive, and demand that I shall be
lieve it, or be regarded by them as an infidel,
I certainly may say, what do you mean by it ?
What intelligible idea do you give me of the
signification of your own words? If they can
not explain their own proposition ; then I shall
tell t hem " they themselves know not whereof
they affirm" and certainly I cannot expound the
meaning of such a proposition for them ; and
so must wait until they have found out what
it means, before I can tell them whether I be
lieve it or no — whether the Bible teaches it or
no. As it now appears it is utterly inconsist
ent, self contradictory and absurd. .Three in
finite, eternal persons in one — three Gods in
one! what can be more impossible? What
more self contradictory ?
But my brother has come here, with the Bi
ble, and claims that he has proved from its tes
timony, 1st, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man,
having a human nature, with "all the essential
properties and common infirmities thereof
which no body will deny — and 2d, that that
same being or person was and is the, almighty,
unchangeable, perfect God. Well, I promptly
reply, that is as plain a contradiction as you
can propose to my understanding. , Ah ! he
rejoins it is taught in the Bible, and so you
ought to believe it. "I grant" says Mr. Lee,
" that all the facts of his history show that he
was a man — but the words of the Bible teach
me that he was also God : so I believe he was
both in one." Before I yield to this kind of
reasoning let me test it, in application to one
or two other cases. The Bible teaches, all its
language on the subject would lead us to be
lieve, that the earth is a vast immovable, or sta
tionary body, and that the sun, inoon and stars
rise in the east and roll over it to the west. —
Such is the daily and nightly declaration to our
senses, and such was evidently the belief of the
prophets, and the Savior and his apostles — and
such is the' meaning of what they said in refer
ence to this matter. But the science of astron
omers, since the Bible was written, has proved
beyond a question, that the Sun is the center

138

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRNIE OF THE TRINITY.

of a system of worlds to which the earth be
longs, and that the earth riot only turns upon
its axis but revolves around the sun. ftow,
friend Lee undoubtedly believes this as much
as I do. But what will he do with the scrip
ture testimony on this point ? • The same defer
ence he shows to the letter of the Bible in the
other case, should lead him to believe both, viz :
that the sun revolves around the earth, and
the earth around the sun at the same time. —
But this is an impossibility, and so he cannot
believe both. He must reject one doctrine or
the other. If he decides, as he must decide in
favor of the doctrine of Copernicus ; then shall
I tell him that the doctrine of two natures in
Christ is more inconsistent and self contradic
tory, than would be the doctrine that the sun
turns round the earth and the earth round the
sun at the same time. And that the addition
of a third person to his Godhead only increases
the difficulty, as much as it would in the other
oase to introduce another planet to revolve
around' the earth at the same time that they
are each revolving around it, and around each
other. MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.
I shalldevote my remarks mainly to an ex
amination of Mr. May's reply to my arguments.
He says that Unitarians believe in hereditary
depravity. Now, as he believes in a human Sa
viour, his Saviour is a depraved man.
.Mr. May — That does not follpw.
Mr. Lee — Then you dpn't.believe in heredita
ry de pravity . ¦
Mr. May— No ! no ! You dont understand
Uhitariaaism. ' Mr. Lee— Ah ! That may be !
He' also says that Unitarians believe in the
divinity of Christ, but not in his deity, in refer
ence to a quotation I made from Mr. Sears'
book.' Now I will read that again :
"St. John iasserts the same truth in descri
bing the. Divine Word made flesh, that , is,
brought, down into, the conditions of mortal
existence and clothed in human form. He is
asserting the ground of Christ's plenary au
thority and wisdom, and this he-does by descri
bing these fleshly surroundings as enfolding the
Divine wisdom, fife within life, — the infinite
become visible in the finite, not by being super
induced tipoh Christ by special gift, but by form-
ng the inmost principle of his natural being.
Nothingi ¦ less than this satisfies the record of
. tfre supernatural .conception, by Matthew, or of
the Divine incarnation by John.

We do not stop at what is mortal and finite in
the fact of the Divine* incarnation ; we do not
; even see the finite, but look through it as we
i look through glas3 to see the sun ; and then
, the Divine nature unveils itself to our longing
! vision, and out of Jesus Christ comes the un-
1 clouded blaze of the Godhead !"
!
| In respect to the temptation of Christ, Mr.
| May has said that I introduced it. But this is
a mistake. I only quoted the text that speaks
of Christ being led up of the spirit to be tempt
ed of the Devil, to show that the acts attributed
to the Holy Spirit were such as a person only
can perform. Mr. May denied that the Spirit
did any such thing. That brought up the issue.
Now the war is between him and the Scriptures.
They declare that Christ was led up of the Spir
it to be tempted of the Devil. Mr. May says
it was not sor-that his temptation was by his
own evil thoughts. The evangelist says, more
over, that he was full of the Holy Ghost. N°^i
if he was full of the Holy Ghost, how could he
be possessed to any extent with evil, or so as to
be tempted by it ? The sum of the matter is,
that Mr. May has arrayed himself against' the
Scriptures. And he has no hesitancy in array
ing himself against the recofty when it does not
suit his purpose. And indeed, he is ready to
discuss that question, as he tells you himself.
I now resume the remarks I was offering on
the Redemption of man bv the propitiation
through Christ.
Propitiation — the Greek word is hilasmos, .
from hilao — tp propitiate : "A propitiation,
atonement, reconciliation, a sacrifice, sin-offer
ing." — Grove.
" Propitiation : expiation, one who makes ex
piation, propitiatory sacrifice;"— Greenfield.
In 1 John i. 2, he is presented, not only as our
propitiation, but also as our advocate, with the
Father. .Christ ispur intercessor at the throne of
God, by whom and through whom alone we can
obtain access to" God.
" But this man, because he continueth ever,
hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore
he is able also to save them to the uttermost
that come unto God by him, seing he ever liv
eth to make intercession for them." Heb. vii,
24, 25.
Intercession — Greek— Entunkano, to apply
to, entreat, mediate. 
The doctrine is, .that Christ, offered himself
for sinners, an expiatory sacrifice, by virtue of
which, and by which only, they can be pardon'
ed and made holy and happy forever.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

139

The above texts have been quoted for the pur
pose of obtaining a statement of the doctrine.
The principal proof is yet to come.
I. The necessity of such an expiatory sacri
fice as Christ has offered, may be demonstrated
by reason and common sense, after an admis
sion of the existence of God as a moral gover
nor of our race, as set forth in the Scriptures.
1. All men are required by the law of God to
-obey him perfectly.
2. The penalty of God's law being death, is
endless in its own nature.
" The soul that sinneth it shall die." Eze.
xviii. 20.
" The wages of sin is death." Rom. vi. 23.
" To be carnally minded is death." Eom.
viii. 6.
" Sin, when finished, bringeth forth death."
James, i. 15.
"Even when we were dead in sin hath he
quickened us together with Christ." Ephesians
ii. 5.
Death, whether natural or moral, physical or
spiritual, is in it's own nature endless.
Death is the negation of life, the absence of
that life to which it stands opposed.
Where therelis death there is no life ; and
where there is no life, life can never be, unless
it be communicated by some foreign agent.
For God to interpose his power and quicken
the dead sinner, is to remit] the penalty of his
law, which is death. We have now reached this
.point ; no sinner can be saved but by a pardon.
How, then1, is this pardon to be obtained ?
1, It cannot be obtained on legal ground.
The law makes no provision for the remission
of its own penalty. ^This is -settled by gpod au
thority. " Is the law then against the promises of God?
God forbid ;' for if there had been a law given
which could have given life, verily righteous
ness should have been by the law.' Buflthe
Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by1 faith of Jesus Chf ist might be' given
to them that believe." GaPiii- 21.
This text asserts that the lawjcould not give
life ;, it did not provide for the remission of its
own penalty. _
A law providing for the remission of its pen-
-altv would be, in effect, the same as a law with
no penalty, whichVould.be of no force
2 A pardon cannot be looked idr by the mere
S AUthe'pertecUons of God proveahis point.-

(1.) Immutability forbids it.
God having annexed the sanction of death to
his law, must. change to annul it, without a rea
son like the atonement.
(2.) Justice, in such case, would be violated
either in the annunciation of the death penalty,
or in its remission without a new reason.
(3.) The same wisdom which determined upon
the penalty of death, cannot avert it without
the atonement.
(4.) The same goodness which consented to
the law with death as its sanction, cannot de
mand the sinners pardon without satisfaction.
3. The only remaining ground of pardon is
the true one, satisfaction to public justice.
We have now secured two points, viz : first
no sinner can be saved but by a pardon ; and
secondly, no pardon can be granted but on the
ground of satisfaction, or an atonement.
We now come to the third link in the chain of
argument, which is, man cannot make satisfac
tion or atone for his own sin.
Man has nothing to offer as an atonement for
his sin on which the law has not already fixed its
claim. Future obedience, were it rendered, would
not atone for past sins. '
The law requires obedience during the whole
of our existence, but such an one could obey
only during a part of his existeice.
If then, no human being can atone forhigown
sin,' iriuch less for the sins of others, the offering
made' by Christ is the only ground of hope, for
humanity. II. The types and symbols of the Mosaic Rit
ual, as a significant index, all point to the death
of Christ, as the sinners real and only atoning
sacrifice, and expiation.
I have not time to read all the cerempnial
law,,npr to, spread before, you the sacrificial
worsh|p of fifteen hundred years.
I will refer you to the common sin-offering.
"And if. any one of the common people sin
through ignorance, which he. doeth somewhat
against any of the commandmsnts of the Lord,
concerning things which ought not tp he dpne,
and be guilty ; or if his sin, which he hath,sin-
ned, come to his .knowledge; then he; shall
bring.his offering, a kid of the goats, a female
without blemish, for his sins which he hath
sinned. And he shall la^ his hand upon the
head of the sin-offering, and slay fhe sin-offer
ing in the place of the burnt-offering. And the
priest shall take of the blood thereof with his

140

DISCUSSipN OF THE .DQCTRINF. OF, THE TRINITY.

finger, and put it upon the hprns of the altar of
burnt-offering, and shall pour outall the blood
thereof at the bottom of the, altar. And, he
shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is
taken away from off the sacrifice of peace-offer
ings ; and the priest shall burn it upon the
altar, for a sweet savour unto the Lord : and
the priest shall make an atonement for him,
and it shall be forgiven him." Lev. 4 :. 27-31.
¦ ,n ¦ ' .-¦ ¦ ¦ >
I will also refer you to the annual atonement.
'¦' And he shall take, of the congregation of the
children of Israel two kids, of the goats for a
sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering,
And, he shall take, the, two goats, and present
them ,before the Lord at the door of the taber
nacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall
cast lots upon the two:goats-; one lot for the
Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat. And
Aaron shall, bring the goat upon which the
Lqrd's lot fell, and offer him /or, a sin-offering :
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the
scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the
Lord, tp make, an atonement, with him, and to
let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness.
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the
head of the live goat, and cbnfess over him all
the iniquities of the-children of Israel, and all
their transgressions in all their sins, putting
them upon the head of the goat, and shall send
him away by the hand of a fit man into the wil
derness. Arid the goat shall, bear upon him,
all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited :
and ha shall let go the goat in the wilderness."
Lev. 16 : 5-22.'
These offerings all foretold the death of Christ
as an offering for sinners, not as an example of
patient suffering merely, but as an expiation for
the sins of men.
III. The Scriptures teach directly in various
ways and forms of speech that Christ did die as
an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of man.
" But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastise
ment of our peace was upon him ; and with his
stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep, have
gone astray ; we have turned every one to his
own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of'us all." Isa: 53: 5, 6.
" Who his own self bare our sins in his own
body oh .the tree, that we, being dead to sins,
should live unto righteousness ; by whose stripes
ye Were healed." lPet.2: 24.
" Even as the Son of man came not to be min

istered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life, a ransom fpr many," Matt. 20 : 28.
The word, here rendered ransom is Lutron.
It is derived from lup, to pay, hence, ransom
means a price paid for the redemption of a cap
tive. "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time,' J l.Tim. 2:6.
I Here the word rendered ransom isantilutron,
from anti against, and lutron, a price denoting
that Christ laid down his life against or oppo
site our lives, as a price in exchange.
" But God commendeth his love toward us,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us. Much more then, being. now justified
by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him.'-' Rom. 5 : 8, 9.
" But when the fullness of the time was come,
God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made
under the law. To redeem them that were un
der the law, that we might receive the adoption
of sons." Gal. 4 : 4, 5.
" In whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace." Epp. 1 : 7,
" Who gave himself for us, that he might re
deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto him
self a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
Titus 2: 14.
" But if we walk in the ligh,t, as he is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us
from all sin." 1 John 1 : 7.
" And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and
the Prince of the king9 of the earth. Untd him
that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood, And hath made us kings and
priests unto God and his Father ; to him ie
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
Rev. 1 : 5, 6.
The above Scriptures can never be explained
upon any principle which denies that the death
of Christ was an expiation for the sinner's guilt.
It is on no other principle that his suffering can
be accounted for. He clearly suffered more
than any other human being ever did, or ever
will suffer. He suffered before any violence
was offered to his person. How will you ac
count for that dreadful agony in the garden
during which he sweat great drpps ot blood '
There appeared an angel strengthening him,
that he might bear f the agony, and how much
he isuffered with thpse celestial props beneath

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.'

141

him we can never know. It is probable to me
that he suffered enough to have crushed every
member of the human family out of existence.
And what caused all this suffering ? The an
swer is, the weight of the world's sin was upon
him, he bore our sins, in his own body on the
tree. On the cross, when that terrible agony
returned, he cried out, " my God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me ?" All this can be ac
counted for only on the ground that he suffered
for the sins of the world. If he died merely as
an example of patient suffering, we find bright
er examples in Paul, Peter, Polycarp, and a
hundred of other martyrs, who died joyfully
and shouted amid the consuming fires, — no such
dread of the scene as Jesus manifested, and no
such complaint as he uttered. If they all died
as mere martyrs, the Apostles appear to the
best advantage ; but if we admit that Christ
died for the sins of men, all is plain. This is
the doctrine of the Scriptures I have quoted,
and it is this glorious doctrine that supported
the martyrs ; they believed it in life, trusted it
in death, and sing its triumph in heaven: Wor
thy is the .Law for he was slain, and hath re
deemed us to God, and hath washed us in his
own blood
On Thursday evening next this discussion will
be closed. In my first speech I shall reply to
what Mr. May has said this evening, on the
subject of the Trinity and the atonement, and
'in my second speech, I shall sum up the whole
discussion, and conclude it on my part.
Mr. May's 2d Speech on 10th E vexing.
I will state the subject pf the remarks Mr.
. Lee has just been making, as he announced iL
in his second speech on the Fourth Evening of
our debate. The sixth and- last ground, he
then said, on which he sho<fld maintain the
deity of Christ was that
" Christianity as a saving system, proceeds
upon the assumption, that Christ possesses
supreme divinity, power and authority. The
Gospel proceeds to offer eternal life to sinners,
upon the assumption that Christ suffered and
died as the sinner's substitute ; to make satis
faction for sin ; to be the sinner's propitiation,
so that sinners may receive pardon through
faith in him ; and receive the gift of eternal life ;
which they could not have had without such
death

least one place, where Jesus Christ made such
an assumption as this, in plain language. | I
have never seer, that place although. I have
been a reader of the New Testament for fifty
years. Surely such a doctrine as my brother
has announced to be the only ground of "the
sinner's hope, would have been wholly new tp
the Jews, to whom the Gospel was first sent,
and therefore should have been explicitly sta
ted by him, who was sanctified and sent into
the world to save it. If there were really no
efficacy in genuine repentance — there was the
greatest need that the astounding fact should
have been made known by Christ ; because all
the teaching of Moses and the prophets had
gone to assure men that, " when the wicked
man turneth from his wickedness and doeth
that which is right, he shall save his soul."
The writings of Moses plainly teach the mer
cifulness of God, Exod. XXXIV. 6. 7. They
represent him as, symbolically, dwelling on the
mercy seat, and as showing mercy unto thou
sands of generations, Ex. XX. 6. They teach
that he can rescind his threatenings, without
any violation of the rectitude '6f his character,
or infraction of the established rules of his
government, or departure from the principles
of his holy law ; for they state that he did it in
several instarices in his dealings with his peo
ple. Moses assured the people of Israel that
God would accept and bless them wholly on
the ground of their obedience, Exod. XIX. 5. 6.
He further assured them that if, after they had
sinned, they repented, returned to the Lord
and became obedient to his voice, he would
have compassion on them, arid restore them to
his favor ; " for fsaith he) the Lord thy God is
a merciful God."
David and the other the writers of the Psalms
describe God as forgiving sins, because of his
merciful kindness. They teach that nothing
but penitence is necessary, on the part of the
dinner, in order to his being pardoned, and that
moral excellence is the only condition on which
divine pardon could be enjoyed. — Ps. XXXDL
1. Clll. 3-8. 2 Sam. XXII. 25. 26. 27. Psalms
XV. and XXIV. and CXII. and LL. 16. 17.
Solpmon, at the dedication of the Temple, in
the prayer, which he offered in the hearing of the
1 whole congregation of Israel, 2 Chron. VI chap.
mentions no condition of pardon but penitence

142

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

and prayer. He says that God will render to
eyery man according to his ways. In his Pro
verbs Ch. XIV. 14. he declares that "the good
man shall be satisfied from himself."
The prophet Isaiah most emphatically de
clares the sufficiency of repentance, for the ac
ceptance of sinners with God, without any con
sideration but the divine mercy. See his first
chapter, especially from the 16 to the 20 verse,
He'represents God as showing mercy and par
doning sin, simply on the ground of the sin
ner's forsaking his evil ways and returning to
him, Ch. LV. 7. and his dwelling with the hum
ble and contrite "to revive the spirit of the
humble, and the heart of the contrite one," —
chap.LVII. 15..LXVI. 2. Throughout his
prophecies, Isaiah represents God as actiDg
towards nations and individuals according to
their moral state. This prophet having so
clearly and forcibly expressed himself on this
wise in the plainest language — a few figura-
tke expressions, that ^ccur in his writings,
ought not to be construed as teaching an op
posite doctrine.
Jeremiah spent his days in lamentations over
the sins of his people, and in calling them to
repentance. He always declares that God will
pardon and accept the penitent. " Only ac
knowledge thine iniquity" he says in the name
of the Lord "Return ye backsliding children,
and I will heal your backslidings." I have
time only to refer you to Ch. III. 13-22. IV.
14. VII, 5-7.
, In Ezekiel XVIII. there is as full and strong
a :declaration of the sufficiency of repentance
to secure pardon and salvation to the sinner,
as the words of any language could express. —
I beg my friend Lee, and all who hear me to
turn to that chapter, and read it all, but espe
cially from the 21 to the 27 where they will
find those comforting words, "when the wick
ed man turneth away from his wickedness,
that he hath committed, and doeth that which
is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive."
. Sir, if there were time, I could take you
through Daniel and all the minor Prophets and
quote from every one, of them passage after
passage, bearing .witness to the mercifulness
of God. Of the efficacy of repentance, as the
condition.of pardon, they seem not to have en
tertained a doubt. Very few passages can be1

found in the Old Testament, which, seen even
through the mist of orthodox theology, look as
of the same complexion with the dismal creeds
of the Churches.
. Now, Mr. Chairman, if Moses and the Pro- <
phets had all taught a false doctrine, and en
couraged a delusive hope, how obviously neces"
sary was it that Jesus, who declared of him
self "to this end was I born, andforthis cause
came I into the world, that I might bear wit
ness iothe truth" — how obviously necessary —
how especially incumbent was it upon "him,
that in preaching to a pepple who relied upon
Moses and the prophets, he should have expo
sed the error, and taken the utmost pains to
eradicate it from their minds; But, did he dp
so, Sir ? Turn to the accounts we have of his
preaching and show me where. You cannot
show me where. Mr. Lee cannot. The Gos
pel is a system of divine mercy and grace. —
The conditions are repentance, faith and obe
dience. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus,
taught the efficacy of repentance, and the ne
cessity of real, personal righteousness in order
to acceptance with God.
Christ was a preacher of repentance and
righteousness. God sent him to bless the
Jews first, and afterwards the Gentiles, but it
was, as Peter deelared, " by taming tlcemfrom\
their iniquities." Acts iii. 26 — not as brother
Lee would have us suppose by " dying as the
sinner's substitute," but by raising the sinner
from the death of sin to the life of righteous
ness. Jesus declared (Mark ii. 17) that the
leading object of his mission was " to call sin
ners to repentence."
In his sermon^m the Mount, Christ taught'
not a syllable about the necessity of his dying
to satisfy divine justice. If he did let brother
Lee show me where. He. taught that to do,
the will of God, and to seek to become 'like-.
him is the way to gain admittance into heaven ;
that the condition, on which we may hope for
forgiveness, is that we forgive others. He in
culcates throughout that sermon perfect mor
ality, impartial benevolence, and self-sacrificing
adherence to the law of righteousness, and
at its close (although there is not a word in it
about the orthodox scheme of salvatipn) he
declares, emphatically in an impressive figure,

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

143

the safety, i. e. the salvation of every man,
who would hear and do what he had been
saying. One of the first acts of Christ's ministry, as
related by Jolm, is his conversation with Nico-
demus, in which he assures him that nothing
but a repentance so entire, that it would evince
a complete change of heart, and be as it were
a new birth, would suffice to bring him, or
any other selfish, worldly minded man, into
the kingdom of heaven ; but he did not inti
mate to the ruler a word about brother Lee's
doctrine. Jesus taught that men will be accepted or
rejected, according to the use they make of
the talents entrusted to them ; and that when
brought to judgment they will be accepted or
rejected, not according to their belief or unbe
lief in such doctrine as Mr. Lee declares to be
the only grpund of his hope, but according as
they* have or have not fed the hungry, clothed
the naked, comforted the afflicted, relieved the
suffering, and delivered the. oppressed — that
is according as they have or have not shown
their love of the Father, whom they could nolf
see, by their love of the brethren, who were
all about them.
When the young man came to him, anxiously
inquiring of him, what he would do to inherit
eternal life, he did not tell him to put his trust
in any substitute that was to be offered, in any
satisfaction that was to be made to the divine
justice, but to keep the commandments, Mark
x 19. In his never-to-be-forgotten parable of
the Prodigal Son, he represented God as ac
cepting penitent sinners, just as a compassion
ate father would receive his offending child,
when he saw him turn back from his folly,
and evince a true penitence. Luke xv.
I wish sir, there was time for me to adduce
more specimens of Christ's preaching — and
thfci to go through the book of Acts," and re
mind you that his apostles preached in the
same way — and then into their epistles and
quote passage after passage, in which they de
clare that man will be received or rejected by
God, according to their characters, their works,
their repentance, faith and sbedience.
But; sir, I must glance at a class of passages
in the Epistles, upon which my brother Lee
(as most orthodox men do,) rests his faith in

this doctrine of substitution, and satisfaction.
It is a significant fact, which I would have
you bear in mind that his " scheme of salva
tion," which since the reformation has often
been called Calvinistic, depends mainly upon
the Epistles for its support. I do not know
how it may be with other preachers of the
" Doctrines of Grace," as with singular im
pertinence, they are called ; but it is stated on
good authority, that in the course of the twenty
years, that Calvin ruled Geneva, he preached
588 sermons upon texts taken from the New
Testament ; but mark me, sir, not one of them,
was a'sentence which Jesus Christ had uttered.
Now 369 of his texts were from the Epistles ;
189 were from the Acts, and not one from the
gospels. Bat let it pass.
There are in the Epistles numerous passages
which argue about Christ's death as a sacrifice
for sin (as in one sense it undoubtedly was)
a propitiation, and in one instance and in only
one as an atonement. These passages are too
numerous for me' to quote in the brief time
that is left me. Nor is it necessary, for they
are familiar to all my orthodox hearers, and
Mr. Lee has quoted many of them.
I have only time to suggest the principle
upon which they ought to be expounded, so
that they may be in accordance with the
preaching of Christ ; and not another gospel.
I mean the principle, which would take into
consideration the purpose, which the apostles
had in writing those letters ; and the previous
religious faith and opinions of the persons to
whom they were addressed. The Jews were
a mercantile, trading people, and at the com
mencement of the Christian era ; their nation
was in subjection to the Roman Emperor, they
were scattered throughout the Empire, living
and doing business in all the principal cities.
But wherever they went they carried their re
gard for the religion of their fathers — and as
Christianity was first preached to the Jews, so
everywhere the first converts to the new reli
gion were for the most part from amongst those
who believed in the Mosaic Law and the Ritual.
To engraft the religion of Christ upon the re
ligion of Moses was the first work the Apostles
found that it was given; them to do ; and to
prune off and cast away whatsoever of the
old vine would overshadow, or vitiate the

144

DISCUSSION OF THE noCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

growth of the new. This, was no easy task,
for men, then as now, clung to whatever had
been given to them in their childhood as religi
on. The Aprostles therefore recur frequently
to this part of their work. Sacrifices for sin
were a prominent part of the Jewish worship
and although often shown by the Prophets
and Psalmists to be of no 'value excepting as
expressions of sentiments of dependence, and
sorrow for delinquincies in duty, yet as they
were outward, and some of them imposing they
came to be regarded by the people as of great
value in themselves ; just as now-a-days a man's
piety is by a great many people measured more
by the numb.er of prayers that he says, than
by the conformity of his conduct to the will of
God. To correct the mistake of their/Jewish con
verts, who were not only anxious to continue
in the observance of the Mosaic ritual, but to
enforce the observance of it upon those who
might join their churches from amongst the
Gentiles, the Apostles were obliged to labor to
convince those, who had been Jews, that they
would give up nothing essential if they should
abandon the Ritual of Moses — that circumcis
ion was not any thing of importance, nor un-
circumcision ; but a new creation, was the
thing to be longed for, a change of heart and
life to be wrought in all who would truly em
brace Christ and his righteousness.
This principle to be adopted in the exposi-
. tion of the sacrifiicial language of the Apostles
is so clearly and beautifully stated in a dis
course by Rev. J. H. Allen, formerly of Wash
ington city, now of Bangor, Maine, that I
shall use his language rather than my own.'
See his " Discourse on the Orthodoxy," p. 97.
The epistle to the Hebrews (which was very
probably written by Apollos, the friend of
Paul) endeavonrs, from first to last; to meet
the Hebrew prejudices, and reconcile the Jews
to the simplicity of the Christian faith. This
could be done only through the medium of
their previous ideas. Christianity, without
priest or ritual, was a thing they could not
comprehend : and even those inclined towards
the new religion contemplated this feature of
it with vague terror and dislike. Now the
apostle must show, if possible, on Jewish prin
ciples, how [the ritual not only might be, but

actually hadbeen, donfe away. One main point
of his argument'may be stated thus. On the'
great annual festival of Atonement, or expia
tion, the high-priest went within the vail of the
temple, and sprinkledthe blood »f the victim
on the mercy-seat, expiating thus the thousand
legal offences for which due propititionhadnot
been already made. At that moment the bur-'
den of legal debt was lifted off from the entire
people ;' arid while he remained within the vail;
the usual sacrifices were superseded. Now
Christ, the great high-priest of the new dispen
sation, had passed with his own blood >s vic
tim, behind the vail of mortality, to the mercy -
seat, or immediate presence of God. By the
strictest iriterpretation of rhe Jewish law, all
sacrifices are therefore suspended ; and on their
own principles, while he is within the vail, the
ceremonial worship is no longer required. —
Christ's peculiar fitness, both as priest (for he
s near to us in human sympathy, and can*"be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities") and
as victim (for in the innocerice of his life he is
" a lamb without spot or blemish"), is elabo
rately argued and illustrated ; and the reason
ing is brought to a focus, as it were, by com
paring the 16th Chap, of Leviticus with the
9th of this Epistle.
But there was still another point that gave
uneasiness to the mind of Jews taught to be
lieve implicitly in the ancient faith. Among
the rest, the sacred line of the priesthood", un
broken frem the time of Aaron, must not be
broken in upon, they thought'; and even grant
ing Christ to bo such a priest as was needed
in the new dispensation, how will he satisfy
this claim ? To answer this, the writer re
minds them of a royal priest," who lived ih old
traditionary times, long before Aaron, to whom
Abraham himself, the father of the faithful,
did honor ; far higher, then, in dignity than any
son of Abraham could be. And here, he sd^s,
is just such a priest as Christ. This Melchise-
dek, — without any recorded father or mother ;
of whom you know not so much as when he
began to live or when he died, — he is the great
royal priest of our ancient history. God's own
anointing gave him his princely dignity; — not
any hereditary descent; and just so it is with
Christ." I must leave this statement of the principle

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

145

on which I should interpret the passages that
Mr. Lee has brought forward to sustain the
doctrine he has announced of sacrifice and
substitution, of satisfaction and atonement. I
do not pretend, Sir, that every one of the pas
sages in. the Epistles admits of a perfectly easy
explanation upon this principle. But almost
all of them do — and if, on the authority of a
few passages not easily explained, we adopt
the doctrine of my brotlier Lee, then must we
set aside the plainest declarations respecting
the condition of acceptance, made by Moses
the Psalmists, the Prophets, John the Baptist,
Christ himself, and his Apostles, in all their
discourses that have come down to us.

But Sir, when Mr. Lee urges the satisfaction
made to divine justice by the death of Christ
as the only ground of the sinner's hope, I fear
he has not considered what an imputation he
is casting upon the character of the Heavenly
Father — the imputation that he is more like
an inexorable monarch than a benignant pa
rent. What should we think if a father, in
an age and a country where the father had ab
solute power over his children, even to the dis
posal of their lives — who, on the returji of a
son, that had incurred his sovereign displeas
ure by a misdeed against which was denounced
the loss of an eye or a hand, should refuse him
pardon though his repentance and grief could
*not be doubted, and still insist upon the inflic
tion of the penalty, unless another son who had
never disobeyed the least of his commandments,
touched with a feeling of compassion for his
brother's sufferings, should come forward and
suffer in his stead the penalty of the law —
what should we think of a father who should
press his justice to such an extent and accept
of such a substitute ? — and what should we
say of the offender who could wish or consent
to be relieved on such terms.
Then I ask, if the law'is Or can be honored
or sustained by the inflicion of its -penalties
so much as it is by the submission of those
who have offended against it ? What can make
a law or a law-giver appear so venerable as the
acknowledgements of penitent transgressors,
that they have found the way of transgression
hard, that they have learnt by bitter experience
thakthe law against which they have offended'

is a righteous, a wise, a merciful requirement ;
and that they can never be at peace themselves
until they have become wholly obedient to it.
All the reasonings that I ever heard or read
in support of this doctrine my friend prizes
so highly, were based- upon analogies drawn
from earthly monarchs and human governments.
But if the administrators of hunian law could
only discern the hearts of men, so as to know
certainly when they have repented, what need
would there be of inflicting any punishment for
past transgression ? The sorrow and shame,
that a truly repentant heart always feels, are
punishment enough ; and the eager return of
such a one to obedience is the highest tribute-
that can be paid to the majesty of the law.
This would be perfectly so under tbe divine
government, where no pretences of penitence
can escape detection — and where only the truly
contrite heart, those who do works meet for
repentance, can be received.
But sir, there are many serious objections to
the doctrine of Mr. Lee. It is inconsistent with
his doctrine of the perfectly divine nature of •
Christ. For if he argues as undoubtedly he
does, that God the Father is a being so holy,
so pure, so just and exact in all his demands, ,
that he cannot look upon iniquity without ab
horrence, nor remit the punishment due to the
sinner, unless the honor qf his offended law be
sustained by some one's enduring the penalty in
the sinner's stead. If he argues thus from the holi
ness, purity, justice of the Father — what can he
say of the Son but to allow that his holiness is
less perfect, his purity less nice, his justice less
stern — so that he can so pity the sinner as to be
willing even to suffer in his stead. Here then
his argument militates against the equality of
the Son in these respects which I have named,
and shows him to be inferior to the Father ; un
less indeed it shall be made to appear that in
mercy the Son so far transcends the Father as
himself to become the superior of the two.
Hear another objection sir, to this doctrine of
my brother, on which he bases all his hopes. It
is argued in its behalf — he must argue I think
in the same way — that unless Christ the substi
tute for sinners be an infinite being, he cannot
pay the penalty, for as sin is an offence commits
ted against an infinite being, it is an infinite
evil, and therefore demands a satisfaction that

146

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

no finite being can pay. Sir, there are several
gross fallacies in this mode of reasoning.
I. If an offence committed against God by a
man be an infinite evil because of the infinity of
the being offended, by parity of reasoning, the
satisfaction that may be made by a man, if ac
cepted, would become infinite because made to
an infinite being, just as much as the offence was
committed against him.
Then again : for the same reason, the sin of
an individual is an infinite evil ; therefore there
must be as many infinite evils to be atoned for
as there are or have been individual sinners —
that is very many millions.' But it will not be
pretended that Christ himself is more than one
infinite being — so that even he, according to this
scholastic reasoning — even he, can atone for the
sin of only one man, and all the rest must go un
redeemed. But why should the infinity of God attach to
the offence committed against him any more
than his other divine attributes ? For no reason
that I can conceive of — therefore we may as-
.cribe omnipotence, omniscience, invisibility, un
changeableness to the sins of men just as mnch
as infinity.
But is my brother in sober earnestness when
he alleges that thS infinite-satisfaction of Christ's
death is the only foundation of the sinner's hope?
What, if Christ be noffGod and capable of mak
ing an infinite satisfaction, will it follow that
God hath ceased to be love ; that the riches of
his grace are exhausted ; that he will no longer
show mercy and forgive ; that the promises and
declarations of the gospel are not true ? Is not
the love and mercy of God infinite ? Have they
not existed in him from all eternity ? Are they
not essential parts of his character, of his nature ?
No where in the Scriptures is the supposed sat
isfaction made by Christ's death, placed before
sinners as the ground of their hope ; but the rich
mercy and free grace of God in him.
ELEVENTH EVENING— MARCH 23.
MR. LEE'S FIRST SPEECH.
In thinking over the themes appropriate to
this last evening of this discussion, I am unable
to intrDduce all that I deem important and
necessary. There are so many things that need
attention I shall find it necessary to bring to
bear my most powerful condensing apparratus.

So that without many words I shall proceed
straight forward to notice his replies to my ar
guments before offered to your notice on the
subject of the Trinity.
1. He entirely misrepresents my argument.
Once he represented me as holding to three
beings in the Godhead, and once as holding to
three Gods. On this rested the whole force of
his arguments. I. have made no such represen
tations, but have before corrected him in this
particular, and am sorry that he persists in it.
It only proves that my argument cannot be
assailed until it is misrepresented.
He accuses me of proving it by legerdemain.
Has he no better reply than such a Charge. It
is an admission that the argument cannot be
answered. The facts are these :
We agree that there is but pne God. I af
firm that in the Godhead there is a three-fold
personal distinction, of Father Son and Holy
Ghost. The existence of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, he admits, but denies their unde- -
rived-divinity. I prove that they are. all divine.
One of two consequenees must follow, viz, there
are three Gods, or these three personal distinc
tions exist in unity of the one Godhead. If
he could answer my arguments and disprove
their divinity, he would have' no occasion to
talk of three beings, and three Gods, but fail
ing to do this, he has no hope left but to affirm •
that my argument proves the existence of three
Gods. This is a>departure from the rules of
debate. See Hedges Logic, Bule II. page 161.
That the three-fold -distinction exist in the
Godhead,. he admits may be true, by agree- *
ing to debate it with me.
But when the distinction is proved he refuses
to explain it by the Trinity in-unity which may
be true, and rushes upon the conclusion which
both of us agree cannot be true.
He says that I am bound to prove that the
three are one. Not so. We agree that there
is but one God, and I am bound to prove the
distinction of persons in the Godhead, which I
have done. But he is bound to disprove the
distinction, that there is no Father, Son and
Holy Ghost in Unity of the Godhead, not that
there are three Gods, for that we have both
agreed cannot be trne.'
2. His attempted play upon my remark, that

DfBCUSSION OF THE
the Father is God in the highest sense, was
worse than trifling. I said highest sense, not
in comparison with the sense in which I hold
Christ to be God, but in reference to his asser
tion that Christ was called God in a subordi
nate sense. That was no admission on my
part of a higher and lower sense. I affirm that
he ought to know better than to reason thus.
3. His assertion that it was not necessar;
to notice my Scriptures quoted to prove the
Trinity, was undoubtedly the easiest way of
disposing of them.
The plural form of the name of God, with
the expression, let us make man in our own
image, would prove that a man must be a trin
ity if it proves any thing. This was his only
reply on this point.
Well, can he prove that every man is not a
trinity? I do not admit that any such conse
quence follows, butetf it did, it would not alarm
me. Philosophers divide the mind into the in
tellect, the affections, and the will, and yet
there is but one mind. Paul speaks of man as
composed of a spirit and soul and body, and
yet there is but one man where this trinity in
unity is found.
4. His explanation of the scene at Christ's
baptism is based wholly upon a false view of
<Jod. He contends that the Father speaking
from heaven, and the Son coming up out of the
water, and the Holy Ghost descending, could
not all three have been God in the three local
ities, or if theyrwere, they were three Gods.
But God is every where at all times, but not
everywhere manifest at the same time and in
the same manner.
But God could manifest himself in the
three places at the same time, and still there
be but one God. My friend reasons as though
his God was just like his Saviour, a man who
can be in but one place at the same time. '
5. The form of Baptism appears to trouble
him. How men can worship and be dedicated
to God, and a creature, a man, and an attrib
ute at the same time is not easy even for him
to explain. By the Father he understands
God. By the Son he understands a man, the
Son of one Joseph, called Jesus Christ, and by
the Holy Ghost he understands the power of
God, that divine energy by which the gospel

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

141

was attended. But this does not meet my argu
ment, nor relieve his. It still follows that we
are baptised in the name of and consecrated to
one God, one man and one manifestation, power
or energy of God.
But look at his reasons. He justifies the use
of the name of the Son in this relation, on the
ground of the preceding verse, which says :
" All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth."
Now, unless he existed in unity of the God
head, God emptied himself of his omnipotence
and became powerless, for two distinct beings
could no^; possess all power at the same time.
Again, how does it appear that Christ, being
only a man, the Son of Joseph, once the babe
that slumbered in the manger at Bethlehem,
possessing only the essential elements of human
ity, could have a capacity to receive all power
in heaven and in earth. It was proved in an
argument which has not been noticed by my
opponent, that to receive and exercise almighty
power, as a communication from God, there
must first be an infinite capacity which human
ity has not got and never can have. But wa
ving all this, and admitting that he did receive
all power in heaven and in earth, as a distinct
being from the Father, then the Father must
have ceased to possess all power at the same
time, and the consequence is that there must
have been a powerless God, and an almighty
man. Such are the terrible absurdities upon
which my opponent is driven. But if you ad
mit the divinity of Christ and the distinction
in the unity of the Godhead, these difficulties
all vanish.
So with reference to baptism in the name of
the Holy Ghost. By the Holy Ghost he un
derstands the divine energy which accompanied
the gospel. But an energy has no existence
distinct from the operative agents in which it
resides, hence, if my friend admits the personal
distinction between the Father and the Holy
Ghost, as existing in the unity of the Godhead,
he gives up the argument, if he denies it he is
involved in the absurdity of baptising in the
name of God and a.manifestation of God's en
ergy. It only remains for me to notice the author
ities he referred to in this connection.
He first referred to Thomas Jefferson and

148

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

quoted from a- letter of his to John Quincy
Adams. Thomas Jefferson was a great politician, and
as such I respect1 him', but' he was a Deist and
did not believe in the inspiration of the Scrip
tures. As this is 'a Bible question exclusively,
there must be' a famine in the land of evidence,
when openly avowed Deists are quoted as au
thority. As he has quoted St. Jefferson, I
might with a better grace quote St. Daniel, I
mean Daniel Webster,i.who, when inquired of,
how a man of his mind could believe that one
is three and three one, is said to have answered
I know some things, but I do not profess to
understand the arrithmetic of heaven. He
declared that the- three greatest minds ot Eng
land rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, viz.
Milton , Lock and Newton.
Suppose it were true; what does it prove ?
Three' men against all England and the Chris
tian world. He has tol'd you that the forty-
seven learned men who translated our present
revision ot the- Bible from the original Greek
and Hebrew, were 'all Trinitarian-. Moreover,
every distinguished commentator that has ever
wrote on the whole Bible has been a Trinita
rian, and all the learned authorities which , he
has so repeatedly pretended to quote against
me were all Trinitarians. Does not' this weigh
as much as the three ^jnen he claims. But I
cannot even- allow him this, for I have never
yet seen the proof that Lock and Newton were
not Trinitarians. And as to Milton, any one
who has read his master Poem, knows that he
believed in the pre-existence of Christ, since he
describes liim as victor on the battle plains of
heaven when angels fell, before the Eden of earth
felt the blight of sin.
I. His reply on the atonement' in no sense
met my arguments. Those arguments were
clear arid unanswerable, and ne did not attack
one of them, nor notice the texts which I quo
ted in proof.
II. He asserted the sufficiency of repentance.
1. The necessity of repentance and all good
works, as there is opportunity, I . maintain as
strongly as he can. All this was a misappre-
' hension of the question. He argued as though
I held that the atonement superseded the neces
sity of repentance and good works, which is a
misrepresentation. I

But repentance and good works are not suf-
ficient'without the! atonement for the following
reasons. , ¦- " ; ¦' - '
1. They would never and could ' nevei1 have
existed without the atonement. All grace and
divine influence eomihuriicated to man since
the fall of Adam, 'which alone leads to 'repent
ance and good works, is by virtue of the atone
ment.' This atonement was made available
prospectively from' the moment that God de.
clared that the se'eii 'of the woman should bruise
the serpent's head. To this all" the 'sacrifices
pointed from that which smoked upon Abel's
altar to the time when Jesus died: Hence we
read. »
" And almost all things are by the law purg
ed with blood ; and without shedding of bloOd
is no remission." — Heb. ix. 22.
That sacrificial worship was instituted by
God, and' it can have no significance if it be
not typical of the atonement by Christ.
2. Kepe'ntance cannot put away sin, because
it arises as one of the consequences of sin, and
an effect can, never destroy the cause in which
has its existence.'
3. Future obedience added to repentance,
cannot remove sin, because to be sober to day,
will not remove the guilt of having been drunk
yesterday. , 4. It was shown in an argument not answer
ed, that a pardon cannot be granted on the
ground of mere goodness. That argument was
based upon the perfections of God, and is un-
answerable,-but I add, pardon on such a ground
would make a nufity of the law. It would
make God appear as giving a law the penalty
of which he will never inflict. Such a pardon
would have to be repeated as often as a moral
being may choose to sin, which would be sur>
versjve of all moral government.
5. Such a pardon would be subversive of
public injustice. God is just as well as merci
ful, arid he can no more be unjustly merciful,
than he can be justly unmerciful or' mercifully
unjust. The atonement shows God's hatred of
sin, and goes as far to condemn sin in the eyes of
the moral univarse as the damnation of a fallen
World could.

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

149

MR. MAYS FIRST SPEECH.
As I trust all persons who mean to judge fair
ly between me and my opponent, will read the
published report of this discussion, and faith
fully compare what each of us have said, I
shall not spend time in reply to many things
that have just fallen from Mr. Lee. I can only
assure him that I am utterly uuable to discern
any difference between a person and a being.
If he can prove that there are three persons in
the Godhead, he can prove just as well that
there are three beings — three Gods in one. But
as I showed the other evening, he signally failed
in that part of his argument, as he needs must.
When you see it iu print, you will see that he
failed. What he said just now, about a Trinity in
man, was no illustration of the Trinity he is
contending for. He referred to what may be
called three attributes of the human mind, just
as power, wisdom, and love are three attributes
of God. But he would have us believe that
three persons, each of whom possesses all the
divine attributes, are yet but one God.
As to the opinions of Milton, Locke, and New
ton, he cannot maintain his opposition to the
statement I made. Each of those very great
and very good men saw reasons, and gave his
reasons for disbelieving the doctrine of the
Trinity. Mr. Lee has tried to nullify the testimony of
President Jefferson, because, he Bays, he was an
infidel. I introduced him, the other evening,
as a strong-minded and clear-headed man, who
saw and declared the egregio us inconsistency
of the doctrine of the Trinity, which, perhaps,
was the very thing that repelled him from the
system held up as Christianity, and helped to
make him an infidel.
With these few comments, I leave my friend's
speech to-night, with you and our readers, and
proceed to other matters.
I congratulate you, sir, and my respected au
ditors, that this protracted discussion is to close
to-night. Not that I have said all that I should
wish to say upon the subject we have had in de
bate. Far otherwise, I regret to leave many
topics so partially developed as I have been
obliged to leave them, because I fear my mean
ing cannot be fully apprehended. But we have
made too large a demand upon your time and
patience, sir, and upon the public attention.
With Bincere thanks to you, therefore, for the
patient and impartial manner in which you have

presided, and to our fellow-citizens, for the nu
merous and respectful attendances they have
given to us from the beginning to the end, we
shall release you, them, and ourselves at the
close of this evening.
You may have thought, sometimes, that I
have digressed more than was necessary from
the direct line of argument. But consider, sir,
I pray, that if I had followed Mr. Lee step by
step, taking up. every text he had laid down, and
giving my interpretation of it, aud my reasons
for interpreting it differently from what he had
done, I could not, in the time allowed, have
traveled over half the ground he did, and should
have left my argument in a much more unfin
ished state than I now leave it. It has seemed
to me altogether better to explain, as far as I
could, incidentally, the principles of biblical
interpretation, and give specimens of their use
in application to the prominent texts, on which
my opponent and all Trinitarians mainly rely
for the support of their doctrine, leaving it for
him and them, under the guidance of the same
principles, to explain many other passages of
less importance, which I have not had time to
notice. I beg you, further, to consider, that probably
the larger, much the larger part of our auditors,
have come here already believing the doctrine
that has been the subject of discussion : hoping
and expecting that my opponent would easily
establish the proposition he offered to maintain,
and as easily expose my error. They came here,
taught from their ohildhood that there is a
Trinity of persons in the one God ; accepting
the philosophy of that theological system which
rests upon that strange dogma ; and familiar
With the common acceptation of those texts of
Scripture which are usually alleged in its sup
port. Nay, more, sir, is it not probable that
many have come to this discussion their minds
pre-occupied with a horror of Unitarianism, as
if it were the doctrine of devils ! How, then,
could it be expected that I should content my
self with barely replying to such arguments as
my opponent might see fit to urge in behalf of
his proposition. I came not here to measure
my skill with Mr. Lee'B as a tactician in debate.
I came, sir, to do what the occasion might per
mit me, to unfold, and establish a, great truth,
that has been obscured and almsot put out of
sight by the theology of the Churches. It has
been indispensably necessary that I should
point out and hold up to view the exceeding in-

150

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

consistencies, contradictions, and absurdities in
volved in the proposition my opponent had un
dertaken to maintain — The 1st Article of the
creed of his own Church, and of most of the
orthodox Churches in the land.
It has been necessary for me to expose the er
roneous principle of interpretation applied by
my friend to the Scriptures he has quoted : to
show you that very distinguished Trinitarian
writers have differed from him, as widely as I
do, in their understanding of those Scriptures ;
aud not to conceal from our auditors the fact
that the Scriptures themselves have been cor
rupted by some man, or men, in olden times, to
favor the doctrine of the Triune God.
This h as been tacitly acknowledged by my
friend, in respect to the famous text, 1st John,
v. 7, " There are three that bear record in Hea
ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ;
and these three are one."
If he had been able to vouch for the genuine
ness of this text, he .would not have failed to
quote it, as it would have been more to. his pur
pose than any he has been able to adduce.
All these necessary incidentals have pccupied
much time that might otherwise have been :de-
voted directly to answering Mr. Lee's argu
ments and proof texts. But I trust, sir, that
by pursuing the course I have taken, I have put
some who have heard me into possession of facts
that will enable them to discover for themselves
the truth on this great^eubject,
Mr. Lee has repeatedly more than intimated
that my logic was defective. Sir, I have not so
much confidence in logic as many seem to have'.
Logicians have played, and do play, such, queer
pranks with the truth, that I distrust them.
When a logician proves, as the ablest one of our
day has done, that there never was such a man
as Napoleon Bonaparte — though I am aware he
is only showing what ; logical argumentation
can do, he makes me feel, afraid to rely upon an
instrument that pan be, wielded against the most
palpable truths almost as successfully as against
the deadliest errors. When a man, proves so
clearly, as Bishop Berkley did by his logic, that
there is no external world, that it is only.an im
pression upon the mind — that even our own ex
istence is only an idea, not a reality-~I am as
sure that he is mistaken as I am that I have a
body and a mind. Should a man succeed in
proving by bis logic, that in the one living and
true God there are three equal, infinite and
eternal persons, and yet but one, I am as confi- 1 not quite so great

dent that he is in error as I am that Mathemat
ics is a more exact science than logic : that num
bers convey more definite ideas than words.
And should a man prove by the mighty logic
of Dr. Edwards, or Mr. Finney, that such are
the divine decrees, and the fpre-ordination of
God,, and the inexorability of his government,
and the character of his justice, and the nature
of man— that the gift of existence will be, to a
vast majority of the human race, an eternal and
excrutiating curse, I know it would be a lie, as
certainly as I know that God is true and good.
Truth, sKe, is to be seen, not in a factitious
glare, which an able reasoner may throw around
it, but in the clear light that shines forth from
itself. Truth is in its very riature luminous. It
is an emanation from God himself. It is the light
which lighteth every man who cometh into the
world, to the extent that he is able or willing
to receive it. '

My opponent maybe a logician^ sir, but what
has his logic proved ? what can it prove against
the simple statement of the contradiction and
absurdity inherent in the proposition he has un
dertaken to defend ? This doctrine of the Trin
ity was fully defined, and very carefully guard
ed at all points, in the creed by the name of St.
Athanasius, which early in the 5th century of
the Christian Ira, was established as the, faith
of the Church, " which except a man believe
faithfully he cannot be saved:" The Roman
Emperor, Theodosius, decreed its truth ; and all
the powers of the State combined to enforce it
For centuries opposition was pretty much si
lenced, or washeard only in the murraers of in
dividual disoontent, from time to time, through
the long ages of darkness that ensued. At the
revival of learning, and under the quickening
influence of the Protestant Reformation, the
discussion of . this doctrine was renewed. Some
of the greatest biblical scholars, and, at the
same lime, according to the confession of their
enemies, some of the purest and most pious of
the, contemporaries of Luther and Calvin op
posed the doctrine of the Trinity; and since
that day the doctrine has been stated and be
lieved in almost as many different ways ,as there
are words in the proposition. So that it were
very unsafe to, pretend to know what a man
really believes, because he professes to believe
in the Trinity.
Strange as you may think it, the difference a
wei-b*!tWeeU m7 brather Lee and myself, fs
"   " "^y at first be supposed ;

DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

151

that is, if I understand the concessions he has has often alleged, that the Saviour was a mere
made in the course of our discussion. man, but a man endowed with divine wisdom
Mr. Lee— I have made no concessions. and divine power. And I put my truBt not in
Mr. May— I think it will appear that you have what was merely human in him, but in what

made some important ones.
We each of us differ from the Arians, who
believe that Christ was a preexistent, superan-
gelic being, more than we differ from each other.
Mr. Lee believes, as he has said here again and
again, that Jesus Christ was a man, as much as
I do. Both of us maintain, that he had a hu
man body and a human soul ; that he was
subject to our physical infirmities, and " wrcs
tempted in all points like as we are." Then
on the other-hand, I believe as much as he does,
that God was with Jesus ; that he manifested
himself to the world in him ; spake by his
mouth, and wrought miracles at his hand.
But then my brother assumes that he has the
more exalted idea of the nature of Christ, inas
much as he believes, that God was so united as
Bomehow (in a mysterious manner) to con
stitute him-a person equal with God. And yet
I cannot gather from. my brother, that he be
lieves the human nature of Christ was convert
ed into Deity by the union. No : all the while
that Jesus was on earth, while he was doing the
works of God (as Mr. Lee alleges) and receiv
ing the worship of God, his human nature
remained the same, liable to hunger, •hirst,
fatigue and death ; his soul, so far from being
incapable of suffering, as the Almighty must
always be, was agonized in Gethsemane, and
upon the cross. Certainly the body that died,
and the soul that was in agony could not have
been in any sense the eternal, unchangeable
Jehovah ; and if I understand my brother, he
acknowledges that they were not, but were
parts only of the human nature of Christ.
' Therefore, Sir, not to speak again of the un-
intelligibility of Mr. Lee's hypothesis, I am
. unable to see, that there is any thing in it, by
which Christ is exalted higher than he is by the
doctrine which I maintain. For 1 believe that
Jesus of Nazareth, having a material body and
a human soul like any other man, in which he
suffered physical pain and mental anguish, was
yet a man sanctified, endued with the spirit of
God not by measure, aiid sent into the world
to redeem it. I believe that he performed the
wonderful works, and evinced the divine wis
dom, which are attributed to him in the New
Testament, which no one could have, done,
" except God had been with him."
You see then, I do not believe, as Mr. Lee

was evidently divine. Now I ask if my friend
Lee has a faith, which either intelligibly or
practically amounts to any more? If he has,
he certainly has not made it appear in this
discussion. He and all other Trinitarians seem
to me to be clinging to an inexplicable idea of
something, which they call "the two natures
of Christ," or what some used to call a hypos
tatic union, which is a very convenient phrase
to signify they know not what.
In answer to my question the other evening,
' in what sense was Christ the Son of God ?'
Mr. Lee replied " in what sense is any Christ
ian a child of grace, a son of God, who is
begotten by the Holy Ghost ?" Verily I think
that answer implies that, after all, brother
Lee's idea of the sonship of Christ is very much
like my own.
Here some may be ready to inquire, why, if
I see the difference between my Trinitarian
neighbors' faith and my own to be, after all,
not so very great as has been supposed, — why
I am so out-spoken and earnest in my opposi
tion to their doctrine of the tri-one God ? I
answer first, because, unscriptural, irrational
and utterly unintelligible as that doctrine is,
they make more account of it, than of all
Christ's preaching and character. They regard
a man's belief of this doctrine, or assent to it,
as a better evidence of his soundness in faith,
than the most upright conduct, and the most
benevolent affections, manifested by him itt all
the relations and intercourses of life. They
throw distrust upon the only test of a true faith.
which Jesus proposed, when he said "by their
fruits ye shall know them ;" and set up a test
of admission into the Christian Church, and of
acceptance with God, which was no where pre
scribed by Christ or his apostles ; and which is
no evidence of righteousness of life, or holiness
of heart.
The second reason for. my opposition to this
doctrine of the three-one God, is that it is made
the basis of a system of, doctrines, which has as
little resemblance to Christianity, as any thing
that can be found in the theologies of the heath
en world ; a, system of doctrines, in which the
character of God is ^fearfully misrepresented,;
the nature of man frightfully distorted or car
icatured ; and the destiny of the greater part
of the human race is declared, to be far worse

152

DISCUSSION OF' THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

than that of "the brutes. which perish;" a,
system of doctrines, which has alienated from
Christianity many of the best minds of every
age, if it has -not driven them into blank infideli
ty — discountenanced the personal, independent,
thorough study of the Scriptures for- oneself,
and made religion to be too generally consider
ed a supernatural condition, that is superin
duced upon the favored few, " the elect," the
number of which was determined before the
foundation of the world ; and represents that
even they are to be saved not because of any
faith - or good works in them, but wholly in
consideration of the righteousness of Christ
imputed to them, or in some inexplicable man
ner transferred to them ; so that this system of
theology has made the righteousness of men,
(their individual and joint efforts to-do the will
and accomplish the purposes of God,) of little
or no consequence, compared with their accept
ance of this dismal creed of the churches.
The Gospel of Christ has been supplanted by
this theology of the Christian Fathers of the
third and fourth centuries, and the work of the
Lord has been every where hindered.
I rejoice to acknowledge that many, who have
been entangled by their education in the intri
cacies of this labyrinth of inconsistencies, have
yet been so affected by the divine precepts and
the perfect character, and simple doctrines of
Christ, that they' have listened to the responses
of the spirit in their own hearts, and have be
come likewise the dear children of God, true
Christians. But the number of these is every
where far less, than it would have been, if all
of Christianity and nothing of Calvinism had
been every where preached and inculcated.
The dark system of theology, however, still
stands dominant in most of the churches, and
diffuses a baleful influence throughout Christ
endom. Within the last sixty or seventy years, this
system of terrible error has been more vigor
ously assailed than ever before in England and
this country ; and, aided as the assault has been
by improvements in the education of the peo
ple, and changes for the better in man's notions
of civil government, an impression not to be
effaced has been made upon this citadel of or
thodoxy. Man's attention has been directed
more than ever to the practical requirements
of Christianity. And just within the period I
have named more has been done directly' than
ever before, since the primitive age of the
Church, to enlighten and save mankind. And,

Sir, in the only part of the world where Uni
tarianism has ever attained any thing like the
ascendency, there, just there (in Boston and its
vicinity) more plans have been devised for the
relief of suffering humanity, and more has been
done in their behalf, than any where else.
Nevertheless, Sir, the system of Calvinism so
called still remains, upheld by all the power of
the Papal Church, domicllated as the depend
encies of that church are in every part of the
world ; upheld by the Church of England, sus
tained as it is by that mighty monarchy ; up
held in oUr country by the offspring of the
English establishment— the Episcopal Church;
and upheld by the venerable "Presbyterian
Church ; and by the Methodist and Baptist
Churches that give it a qualified support. True,
Professor Maurice of England, and Prof. Cros
by of New Hampshire, and Dr. Bushnell of
Hartford, and Prof. Fitch of New Haven, and
Dr. Beeeher of Boston, and others, have each
and all from within, made great breeches in the
foundations of this system of error. Still it
stands ; and so long as it stands in the holy
place,where the Gospel of Christ alone should be
enshrined, so long ought the ministers of Christ
to assail it. My brother frankly acknowledges
to me, that the creeds of the Presbyterian and
Episcopal churches are stated in language,
whiclrhas become obsolete. " No Trinitarian,"
to use his own words, " can be found, who if
he were called upon to state his views, would
state them in the exact language of either of
those creeds." Why, then, should those creeds
be retained a day or an hour longer ? Let them
be laid away among the things of the past ;
and let the people, all the people, be encour
aged and assisted to study the Bible and the
volumes of nature and providence, " remem
bering" in the words of the venerable John
Robinson in his parting charge to the church,
that came to Plymouth, " that there is more
light yet to break out from them all ;" and
assured that he who shall learn from them to
love truth and hate error ; to dread all wrong,
and try to practise all righteousness, to recog
nize impartially all the rights of all his fellow
men ; to abhor oppression and cruelty, and love
justice and mercy ;— in a word, he who shall
have so learnt, as " to deny ungodliness and
worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously
and godly in this present world," he, and he
only, has learnt that, which has made him wise
unto salvation, let his theological opinions be
what they may.

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE 'OF THE TRINITT.

153

MR. LEE'S SECOND SPEECH.

As a matter of course, it is impossible foi
me now tp give particular attention to the point-
my opponent may make in his lasj; addresses.
Fpr I have now before me more than, mattei.,
enough, tp occupy !t,he time allotted mp, anri
may be compelled to overrun my time, or trans
cend the limits, agreed on.
Before resuming! my reply to points math
previously by Mr. May, I remark, that it is m;
last address. I have no opportunity to reph
to anything be may say in his closing speech.
It is always understood however, that no nev
matter is to be introduced ia. the closing ad.
dress, and I have no doubt that my frieno
will abide this universally recognized rule. I
do not know what he may have to offer in hi?
last remarks, but 1 am quite sure that he wi.l
not do me any harm, he will not certainly break
any of my bones ! It is. not in his heart. And
last my audience if he advances any argu
ments that I have not examined, that they will
take it for. granted, that if I had the opportuni
ty; I would examine them and use them up just
as carefully,, tenderly and softly asl have used
up all the arguments I have noticed.
There is one pojnt more I wish to notice.
The other evening Mr. May passed over my
rejoinder to his exposition of the temptation ol
the Saviour, and instead. pf answering my argu
ments announced that he would repeat a" ser
mon in his own church on next Sunday evening
I have of course no objection to his repeating
his sermon onee, twice or thrice. Nor do 1
complain that he has transferred a portion o)
this discussion to his own pulpit ; but seeing
fehat he has led Off in this direction, I too will
announce a sermon. On next Sabbath evening
I will preach a sermon in the First Presbyte
rian church on the existence and influence of
Devils. I will now resume my remarks where
they were suspended at the' close of my first
speech. 6. This view of pardon which I have advo
cated on thei ground of the^tonement, does not1
represent, Gpifcas a tyrant, but, ratifies his
jgpodj>esB andjpve.
John iii. IS : '* For God so loved the worldj
that be gave his only begotten Sod, that who-
11

soever believeth in him, should not perish, but
lave everlasting life.'' ?$&? jgkaL-. S3s .' IfSp
TheSe are the words of Christ himself, and
will Weigh with my friend. In perfect harmo
ny with this are the words of Paul.
" For when we were yet without strength, in
due time Christ died for the ungodly. Fcr
scarcely for. a righteous mari will one die ; yet
leradventure for a good man some would even
lare to die. But God commendeth his love
,oward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Jurist died for us. Much more then, being
ipw justified by his blood, we shall be saved
rom wrath throuph him. For if, when we
vere enemies, we were reconciled to God by
he death of his Son, much more, being recon-.

ciledi we shall be saveci by his life." Rom, v. 6,
Ti 8, 9, 10.
The love of God is seen in tiie gift pf , his.
Son to suffer and die, and the love of Christ is
¦ieen in his voluntary deatl} for us. As Paul
ixclaims " For the love, of Christ cpnstrajneth
us ; because we thus judge, that if one died for,
all, ,thep were all dead ^ And thajt he died Jbr
all, that they wljiichh^e, should not henceforth.
live unto themselves, but unto him which died
for, them, and rose again." 2, Cor. v. 14, 15.
And that his death for all was an equ,al man-
ifestaftpn, of the love, of the Father has not only,
been proved, but is declared, Heb. u. 9 : " But
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels, for the suffering of death, crqwije,d
with glory and honor ; that he by the grace pf
Gpd should taste death for every man."
The tasting of death was not of hatred, but
of the grace of Qqd. It was by the, grace pf
God that he tasted death for every man. But
my friepd says it is cruelty if he died for sin
ners. Then is the Bible wrong, or cruelty and
grace are the same thing.
,But if this be cruelty, we have more revela-
lions of God'9 cruelty, and that too in the words
, of Jesus Christ. ,
My friend denied twice during his argument
that Christ in any one text represented himself
as coming to die for sinners, or that he repre
sented his death as the ground of hope,
Mr. May here said—" Oh no, I did not say
so. I said there was ho text saying that he
came to die as a substitute for sinners.

154 r

DISpUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OP THB THINlTT.

Mr. Lee. — I think you said .the other top. >
Mr. May.— No, I did not say so. |
Mr. Lee— It amounts to the same thing.
Mr. May meant to deny that he did come as a
substitute. ,,, , i
Mr. May. — Oh no, it does not amount to the
same thing.
Mr. Lee continued.
How strange did this sound, after I had quo
ted and commented upon the text which affirms
that he "came to give his life a ransom for
many 1" This text is found, Matt. xx. 28 ;
Mark x. 45.
" I am the good shepherd : the good shepherd
giveth his fife for the sheep. Therefore doth
my Father love me, because I lay down 'my life
that I might take it again. No man taketh
it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power
to take it again. This commandment have I
received of my Father." John x. 11, If, 18.
This text makes Several points.
(1.) It proves that Christ did give his life
for men.
(2.) It proves that his death was voluntary.
"No man taketh it from me, I lay it down of
myself." (3;) It proves that he and the Father Were
united irt this sacrifice of himself for "the sheep,'
that is men. " Therefore doth my Father love
me because I lay down my life for the sheep."
If this is cruelty, as my friend represents, then
God delights in cruelty, insomuch that he loves
the Son because he voluntarily submits to be
tortured." You see. therefore, that the war of
my friend is not W much with me as with 'God
the Father, and with his Son our Lord Jesus,
Christ. But I have' not done' With his denial that
Christ taught that he came to die, arid that
his death is our only ground of hope.
'*I am the living bread which came down
from- heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he
shall live forc\ er : and the bread that I will
give is myfiesh,' whieh I will give for the life
of the world. John. vi. 51. -'?
Christ gave his flesh and his blood for the oi
world by dying, in which his body was brokei.
And his blood spilth , This is further proved bj
the sacramental supper instituted by his owi.
.hand. ,,,',,,, , , .... ,

''And, as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, hrake it, and gave it, to the
disciples, and said, take, eat ; this is my foody,
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and
gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it : For
this is my blood of the new testament which
is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28.'
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, arid
blessed and brake it. and gave to them, and
said, take, eat ; this is my body. And he took
the cup ; and when he given thanks, he gave
it to them : and they all drank of it. And
he said unto them, this is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for many. Mark
xiv. 22, 23, 24. , : ¦
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and
brake it, and gave unto' them, saying, this is
my body which -is given for you : this do in re>-
membrance of me. Likewise also the cup after
supper, saying, this cnp is the new testament
in my blood, which is sheel for you. Luke xxiLi
16,20. These texts occurring in three of the gbspels
cannot be disputed. They teach beyond the
power of doubt that Christ did represent him
self as dying for the sins of men. "This is any
i blood which is shed for the remission of sins,"
i cannot mean anything less, than that he died to
procure the pardon of sinners. That it was
understood in this sense is clear from the man
ner in which it isapplied in the epistles and
acts of the apostles.
My friend virtually admitted that the doc
trine is tanght; in the epistles, yet he felt at
liberty to reject it because as be assnmed, it
is not taught in the words of Christ. I have
now proved that it is taught in the words of
Christ, and hence, the doctrine as found in the
epistles is to be looked upon, as the apostolic
comment upon and application of the teachings
of 'Qhrist.
I will quote but a few texts as tfrae is short.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it net
the communion of the blood of Christ ? The
bread Which we break, is it not "the communion
of the body of Christ^ l-Cor.x.16. ' ¦'
• "For I have received of the Lord thatwhich
ilso I delivered unto you, that the Lord JesuS,
the same night in, which he was betrayed, took
bread: ;>Aad; whenhe had given tljanks; he

DISCUSSION OF THK DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT. 155
,- - p - ".0'.* ¦
together, in one the children ofrGqd that were
scattered abroad." — John ii. 49-1)2. .,
This speaks for itself without cumment from
me. The argument in proof that Cbrjst did die
for the sins pf men is now placed beyond the
power of contradiction, by those, who pretend
to believe the Scriptures,,
He may talk of its injustice, and cruelty, hut
that is only to talk against God and Iris plan
of saviDg the world ; aud when he declared
that it would ,be mean to accept pi pardpn,on
such ground, he spit in thel'ace of God Al
mighty's offer of mercy through Jesus Christ.
In reply to that, I, can only say vith; the
deepest sorrow in the language fcf,ifaul : —
" Beware therefore, lest that -xime upon you
which is spoken of in thi propheiS ; Behold, ye
despisers, and wonder^ and perish : for I work
a work, in your days, a work which ye shall in
no wise believe, though a man declare it ¦ unto
you." — Acts xiii. .40, 41.
I cannot refrain from noticing the represen*
tation that the goodness and mercy of , God is
a safe refuge for tinners without the death of
Christ. For pure and sinless beings, thegood-
ness of God is enough, but with sinners it is
otherwise. The representations of the,Scrip"
tures are enough to alarm you if you will but
heed them.
God spared not the angels that sinned but
cast them down to hell, and, delivered into
chains of darkness to be reserved unto judg
ment. He spared not the old world. .-> -
He poured a storm of fire and brjmstone,
upon Sodom and the cities of tbe plain and
burned them up.
" Upon the wicked be shaU rain snares, fire
and brimstoue. and a horrible tenipest : this
shall be the portion of their cup. For the
righteous Lord loveth righteousness ; his coun
tenance doth behold the upright." — Ps. ii. 6, 7,
Of their lot it is said :
' " Where their worm dieth not." " Depart
ye cursed" is the sentence. ' "These shall go
away" it is said.
When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on them
that know not God and obey not the1 gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Such is the view of the Scriptures respecting

brake it, and said, take, eat ; this is my body,
which is broken for you : this do in rembrance
of me. After the same manuer also he took
the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup
is the new testament in my blood ; this do ye,
as oft as ye draik it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cnp, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord, uuworthily, shall
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25, 26. 27.
The expression, "Tnis cup is the New Testa
ment in my blood," explains the whole matter.
Testament means covenant, which was sealed
and rendered effectual by his blood. The whole
sacramental seeue becomes a farce if Christ did
not die for the sins of men. One text lrPm
Paul. " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto yon, which also
je have received, and whereiu ye stand : By
¦which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
•what I preached unto yon, unless ye have be
lieved in vain. For I delivered unto ypu first
of all that Which I also ^received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scrip
tures."—! Cor. xv. 1-3.
Mr. May affirmed that the Jews did not be
lieve in the doctrine of a vicarious sacrifice as
the ground of pardon. Well, I have proved
that Christ taught it, and now I will notice,
what they did believe. They were full of er
rors, but amid their errors there were some
glimpses of truth. One of iheir Prophets said
of Christ :
" Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he
hMh put him to grief: when thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,
he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of
the Lord shall prosper in his hand." — Isa. Iiii.
10: " And one of them named Caiaphas, being
the high priest that same year, said unto them,
Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it
iB expedient for us that one man should die for
the people, and that the whole nation perish
not. And this spake he not of himself : but,
being high priest' that year, he prophesied that
Jesus should die for that nation ; And not ;for
that natioil only, but that also he should gather

186

DISCUSSION OP THE DOCTKINE OP THE TRINITT.

the fate of those who will not obey the gospel
of our Lord Jesus, or who presumptously peril
their souls- on the assumed sufficiency of the
merey of God without an atonement for sin.
I shall be obliged to omit my summing up
-'for Want of time. I had prepared a recapitu
lation of my entire argument. I had also pre
pared a summary of the points I have made tp
which there has been no attempt even at reply.
But these must all be omitted. And I proceed
to the concluding thoughts'. '
But what have been the principles developed,
and the positions taken in the fruitless struggle
against my theory and the arguments by which
I have maintained it ?
; 1. No systematic views have been advanced;
constituting a harmonious whole of Christian
ity, upon which a thinking mind' can take hold
as the souls sure anchor, and safely swing off
from times narrow shores upon the broad bosom
of ' an ntitried eternity. Negative propositions,
have been the principal devdlopemenfe, and the!
only faith that has been ulearly brought to
light, is a trust in all unbelief. ' ¦' / '
" 2. Thfe sUcred record has been' ihvaded'; text
after" text has been explained away", whole
chapters have been blotted out ; the' authenti
city of whole books has' been questioned and
theTtiblehas been pronounced' a book of'er
ror ' '
Mr. May said — No that was not what I said
I Said, that there were errors in the Bible.
Mr. Lee— Theri it is a book of e'rrbrs'if there-
are errors in it. It ariiduhts to the" same thing.
Mr. May — No,' it is a different thing.
, 3. 'The Saviour pf, mankind, lias been de
niecl a pre-existence and a divine, flajhjre-pJias
been dismantled Ojfj all Jhat is. superhuman, and
placed .p'eibre.th'e world as the . natural Spn of
Joseph and Mary, bo^n after the.flesh, a, -mere
man. There has.. b^en presented |.in the, plaqe,
of! that almighty ¦ ev^ry wjiere, omnipresent
Saviour, who declares bimselfj in every i assgm-
bly^aiid. always, w$h his .miqjsters even, unto
the end,of.th&: worldj.a man ofitthe stajiiirp, of.
one of us, who can be in but outplace,: at, the,]
sam^time, presenting p^y , a human armjor
the w.hple^ wprld. to, hang their jiopesippon and
to lean, upon in successive j mijllipus., as they
tread the gloomy vale anc|.gp;, dpwn jn\o t the
*0$$r£$$w ;.¦'.-, . ... ;, 

4. The atorament has been denied, as ^eld
by the' saints m life, trusted in deatn,, anf| sung
in heaven — " tfnto h'im that loyed ns and hath
washed psfrpmpiir^insin his own blood be
glory and dO(flbiiprirfprever ;,thpuart worthy,
fbr t^iou wast slaiin,,* and hast; redeemed ns ,to
God by thy hrtqsjd,.'', /„' „',.
These absurd, and fatal positjop ,has0 heen
assailed, exposed and overthrown. I have not
failed to look liis arguments and, position^, full
in the face, I, haye nqt, slumped thpm as; he has
many of mine. I hay,e not found: it necessary
to attack/the Bible as he has 4<mgy. I have
not attempted, to exp|ain away a -sipgje text,
or makp.ft appear that ajrytext does not mean
what it appears to say, I, have ans,wpr.ed ,ali
the questions Ifgthas sepn fit to (%sk; npr have I
murmured pr„complajped that. hpt drew put ,pf
me whaif I would otherwise have concealed, and
what tends to prejudice^ my cause w,ith;the peo-
Ple; ,;,. ." .y.Mr-- ' ¦>¦''¦« ! ' -L
And now Ias^.iio^pred^t,. fpr myself : I <${p
not clairr^ fpr,nvyself( the tonor, of,a,triuiiipli,i
claim if for tjiegtrujtfy, W;hat advantage I inay
have bad in t^e arguinent.I, want it -Jtq". he,, put
down to'. the" credit pjf truth, and not tp, my
credit. , Who anil tp defend tjod'steuth? I
know my incompetency too,, well to, take any
credit to myself. IJad I enjoyed the advanta
ges of .my friend in; early life, $,< might Jiaj^
made me self-confident ; but I came nojt.(up to
the grapple lailen with classic, lov,e, gathered
from"coWegiate bpwe^s. ,
I was, thrown an orphan boy upon thpcpld
bpsom pf.the.wprlil, anipng^ s^angers, at the
tender age of twelve years, since which time %
bave,,not hada father to., guide, my footsteps,
nor 'a, mother, to fmopth my pjlfqw, pr to wum
away my falling tears,, Jnevpr had tbe,ad vfn
tages, ,of a, common schpoif, I learned, my let
ters where they had- been cut for , me with a
penknife upon a shingle in the woods. Allji
know.apd.-alJJ hay^of lijtejjatufe^andr.science
f have acquired by private; study, and,;it, hasj
tjeen, the, price of many a weary hour apd"
many a midnight lamp, w^h.ueyer burned so: :
brightly as ,the love pf knowledge and trujh4n>
my sou].,. , ., j, ';,
And now.God hears, me, record, that I w-onld
sooner sjnk iritp non-existgncethan to deny the
tri^th, or witliliold.Biy hanji from,ite!,defense, or,

DISCUSSION 0? THE DOCTRINE 0E THE TRINITY.

15?

allow it to suffer through my fault. It was this
that-brought me up to the' battle ; not that I
thought myself able of myself, but I felt that
truth was assailed,' and that was enough, and
ever has been enough tp call me forth and ever
shall be, until death sets his signet silent on my
lips.

MR. MIT'S SECOND SPEBCH.
Expressing once more the hope that you and
all others wtll Cpmpwe what I have said with
what my opponent in ft- is discussion has said,
on all points, I have but a word in reply to his
last remarks.
I am not surprised at the little impression my
arguments seem to have madj upon my brother
Lee; I shall not be surprised to learn that ma
ny who have attended this discussion, have
gone away unchanged in their opinion. Most
of our auditors have been educated to believe
the dogmas I have pronounced erroneous,' and
I know full well how tenacious we are of' what,
we learnt in Our childhood. Ask the missiona
ries, who have gone and spent scores of years
hrtryihg'to convert to Christianity the most
enlightened people of India, why thuy have
made so little impression there, and they will
tell you (will they not?) that their auditors
were educated to believe just those things which
Christianity pronounces erroneous. This is the
difficulty I am contending against.
_ I shall not deny that my literary advantages
mearly life1 were, as Mr. Lee has alleged they
were, greater than his. I hope I am not ttn-
grafeful to God, and to myearthly parents, who
gave me what I enjoyed.
But, sir, as it no w seems to me, the greatest fa
vor bestowed upon me in early life, for which I
cannot be thankful enough, was that I was'never
required to learn " the Assembly's Catechism,'?
or anything like that digest of unintelligibili-
tiea. When I see what shackles that kind oi
teaching puts upon the intellects, what fetters
upon the hearts of many of the wisest and best
of people : when I hear the confessions of those
who have broken out of that enclosure, I re-'
joice'with unspeakable joy,1, that I was never
put into.it,
'JSo, sfr; my parents led m6 to read the Scrip
tures, and read them to me ; especially such
parfs as I could most easily understand, more
especially the gospel narratives. And that is
the i'ea'son, probably, why I now believe that
true' Christianity is to bi learnt from the
words, and seen in the lift and character of
Jesus Christ.
The crooning erjror of that system, on which
I commented so freely when I was up before, is
the, Doctrine of Atonement — the doctrine which
teaches, if I understand Mr. Lee and many o
the'approved 'expositors of the orthodoxfajtli,
the doctrine which teaches that the righteous
ness of Christ (the second person of the Godr
headi) has been accepted as a substitute for the.
righteousness " of raia; and that his death,
(though it was the death of only his human na

ture,) was received as a satisfaction for the sins
of the world; or at least of the, elect.
If any doctrine could be devised1 that should
excuse men frbm all efforts on their own behalf,
I know not wherein it would differ from this.
Why should we attempt to pay over again a
debt that has once been discharged? Why
should we attempt to acquire any righteousness
of our own. if the righteousness of the all-per-
feot one has been substituted for any that we
may, or may not, obtain ?
There is not time now to examine this doc
trine thoroughly, nor is it the topic of this dis-
cussion.^ It was introduced by my brother Lee
as the sixth and last reason why he must believe
in the deity of Chrisf, because the world needed
such a one to be a substitute— a satisfaction — a
propitiation with the Father. Nothing else, he
insisted, Could save men. He declared that he,
himself, has no other hope but in the atonement,
which Christ made by his death.
I hope you will consider the exposition I gave
you last evening, of a different doctrine taught
by Moses, the Psalmists, the Prophets, John the
Baptist, Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles
in their Bermons, as recorded in the book of
Acts. If this doctrine be true, it rests mainly,
if not wholly, upon the authority of a few pas
sages, which are found in the epistles, in the ar
guments of Paul and Apollos, to persuade their
countrymen, the Jews, to accept. the gospel in
all its simplicity, instead of the law and the
Ritual of Moses. ,
I gave you, the last evening we were togeth
er, what I believe to be the Clue to the right ex
position of all those passages. You cannot ap
preciate its applicability ;unless you will study
the Scriptures.
As to the text in Isaiah liii. S-, "He was wound
ed for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was
upon him, and with his stripes we are healed."
I need only say, that these words have an obvi
ous signification, which is perfectly consistent
With my ideas of the efficacy of the sufferings
and death of Christ. •' Surely," as the prophet
says in the preceding verse, " he hath borne our
griefs and carried oursorrows."
That Matthew understood this language in
the same sense that I do. is very apparent to me
from the language in which he quotes this senti
ment. Matthew viii. 17, " Himself took our in
firmities, and bare our sicknesses." Here, I
think that the, intimation is plain enough that,
as a physician of the body, while he sympathis
es with the sufferings of his patients, by his
skill in the use df remedies and a proper regi
men, may bear' off from them their diseases — so
Christ, the physician of the soul, by his pre
scriptions to a wounded conscience, and the spir
itual regimen he prescribes, will bear away from
r-hose whofollow his instructions, the sins which '
are the infirmities and sicknesses of the soul.
In our Daily Journal, of 10th of Jan. last,
there was a very valuable article published on
the Atonement, containing in the brief spatee
which it ocoupied, a great deal of information
on the rise and original meaning of this doc
trine. ' I wish that article, or a somewhat more

158

DISCUSSION OP THB DOCTRNIE OP THE TRINITT.

extended one by the same.writer might be pub
lished just tnow. in order to give you facts^nd
hints, for which Ihave no, room here.
The atonement oiiifht. to be the subject, of a
public discussion not less protracted, aud more
thorough, than this has been., , ., ;
. The great error of the whole orthodox doc
trine is.that it implies, that the effects of Christ's
suffering and death were wrought upon the.
mind of God. or up'in the administrafjjpiMif hip
moral government ; inducing him tp .show a
mercy to men, which otherwise he ;cpuld- not
have shown. ,Now all this goes plainly on the
untenable supposition, that there was somer
thing in the dispo's'itipu of the Heavenly Father,
o'r the principles of h,is government, that need
ed to be mollified. Whereas' all that is or ever
was, or ever will be, in the way ;of man> re
conciliation to God. ("who is kind: even to the
evil and unthankful',' and •' more ready to for
give our sius than we are to seek forgiveness,")
is man's own wickedness, perverse disobedience.
That removed, reconciliation with. God ensues
at once; for " he desirethnpt the death of, a
sinner but rather that he would turn to him
and live."
Then it is for m«n?B own good, that this re
pentance, this change of heart and character
should be required of him and wrought in him
Escaping from the punishment of sin, is noi
half so mneh to be. desired as .escape from the
sin itself, and all its horrid effects upon- the
soul. Our orthodox theologians seem to treat
the sins ot men against God very much as our
lawyers treat the crimes of men against society.
They labor on the one hand to convict an ac
cused man that he may be punished ; aud on
the other.hand to.procure his acquital, that he
may escape punishment. . Now, if a man has
eojnmitted a crime against society, and society
regarded and treated every offender, ,as he should
be treated, then the best good, fhat could be
done to the criminal htfnself, would be to as
certain his guilt, that he.might be subjected to
such a course of moral discipline, as would,
restore him to his own approbation and the
confidence of his fellow men. , Now this, which
certainly is not done, and many say cannot be
done, under human goAernmenfs, can and will
be done under the] perfect government of God.
Therefore there can he nothing in the conse-
queuces of sin, here or hereafter so bad, so much
to lie dreaded as the sin itself. , That is the
Bickness. the leprosy of the soul. That is it,
that unfits us for the society of God arid his
angels, Now I hold that the, great good winch
Chiiist came to do for men was to cure them,of
their sins. As Peter declared (Acts iiil, 26J
God sent his son Jesus Christ, " to bless you, in
turiiing away every one of you from his iniqui
ties." He can do us no higher good tban'this.
To procure us a pardon, by paying some com
pensation to offended justice, while we are left
still alienated from the right, and the God' of
righteousness, would be to confer upon us no
substantial benefit.
No, my friends, St. Paul in his, Epistle to
Titus, has, put this matter in »ivery much bet
ter light than my brother Lee. He there says

(chap, ii. H) that Jesus, Christ, " gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all in-
iquity, aud purify unto himself a peiuliar peo1
pie, zealous, of good works." < -
Yes,, he, gave himself for us, his whple life,
his whole character ; all the powers of his mind,
all'the affections of his heart were devoted to
this great purpose ; to exhibit to man the pow
er and the beauty and blessedness of the law of
perfect rigbteousness,.lrpni.obsdi^pe to which
none of us can be exempt, or should wish to be
exempt ; fpr if is,, that law which ;• njoieeth the
heart, and in, the; keeping of whiph, there are
great: reward"^." ,. It is in bis life and death as
a perfect exhibition of true righteousness; lhat
we have the highest inducement, the most pow
erful influence to give ourselves wholly to Gpd.
Many persons have.wondeired, /aud some have
sneered that we. .Unitarians, have put the Cross
upon our Church.' Sir,. it. has a great signifi
cance to lis— a significance, which I tear is but
little understood in the Christian world. -, It is
the emblem of self sacrifice ; of -entire, self-.
abandoument to the service of Gpd andhuraan-,
ity. That is the highest, att linment of the
human soul. That was the crowning grace of
khe character of Christ. The, glory pftthe Cross
is not yet appreciated, I wasisprry to hear my
brother, Lee, last evening, speak sp slightingly,
of our Saviour's conduct in hiB last hours, aud
in the agpriy of dying. If Chri^ vyere/God, his
suffering in the. garden, and his despairing cry ,
from the Cross woulibe inexplicable, for. God
is incapable of sjjfferirig. Or if Christ's h man
nature was consciously united with the Deity, ;
it; would thave been sustained as no .uncora-..
pounded man could have beea. It was because ,
he was truly a mau— becauBehis Ruffering(srw ere
so real, and so exquisite, that' they tire, adapted
to make an impression upon kindredn hearts,
when looked at in their true light, arid not
through the cloudiness of.aiactitiousi theology.
There was nothing like pusillanimity , in the
Conduct of Jesus, as my friend Lee ttnhappily
intimated- He^bad all the tenderness of a
woman, united to the resolution o' a man. He '
shrank from suffering, but never from duty..
Not a syllable • eseaped his, lips to qualify the
offence, which' his truth had jgiveh to his ene
mies. He bad no stoical pride, no iron will, rip
nerves of. brass to defy the pains of death ; but
he had a faith in God, arid a love of the truth',
and a benevolent regard fpr man, which never
faltered. He was true to the last, though his
cry to God, intimated how extreme his suffer-,
ings were. 0, my brother, it seems to me you '
have yet to learn the significance of the Cross.
Our Lord's entire disuse of his miraculous
powers for his own aggrandizement, or even
for the .'relief of his physical Bufferings; his
submission to the.' death of the Cross, more '
ignominious then, and more excrutiating, than ,
that of the gallows is now— adeath winch he
might have avoided by a timely compromise of
his principles, or a slight exertion of, his mirac
ulous power; the tenderness of his deportment
towards his disciples ; his living remembrance'
of his mother ; his prayer fortheforgiveriess'of
the miserable tools of 'tower,' 'who knew 'not

Disduasiori oE the doctrine ot the trinity.

159

*hat they were doing when they nailed him to
'he cross ;— all these things in the midst of
sufferings, ' that wrurig from' him the cry that
has penetrated the heart of humanity eighteen
hundred years after it was uttered,— all these
circumstances together conspire to make the
death of Jesus such a Bcene as the world has
never witnessed, before or since— an example
ot perfect self sacrifice ! And the Cross, when
rightly understood, is the symbol of that high
est virtue of, the bouI. We have placed It on
our Church as such ; hoping and praying that
the remembrance of '• Him crucified" may
awaken in us a spirit like his.
We regard not the Cross as a memorial of a
substitute, that was offered for our obedience
to the Heavenly Father, as a satisfaction to his
justice for the violation of his laws. We do not
wish a substitute, for we wish ourselves to be
come wholly conformed te God's will ; and if
afflictions in this life and chastisements in the
next are seen by our Heavenly Father to be
needlul for us, to bring us wholly into subordi
nation to his righteous will, we dare not pray
to be exempted from any thing, that may be
needful to that end so devoutly to be wished'
We do not wish any other being should inter
pose between us and our Heavenly Father, to
offer him any satisfaction for our delinquencies.
We kuow we cannot feel any satisfaction with
ourselves until we have corrected whatever is
amiss in us ; and we cannot see how a benig
nant holy father, can take any satisfaction in
us, until we have become all he has made us
capable of being. Now for my part, I hope
and pray, that all God's various discipline inay
be continued through this life, and in the life ot
come, until he has brought us to be wholly
reconciled to all his requirements ; and to find
our highest delight in obedience to all his
commands, and in laboring continually to ac
complish all the purposes of his love.
Mr" Lee has endeavored to associate me in
your minds with Theodore Parker. Of this I
do not complain, though it had nothing to do
with our argument. But why should Mr.. Lee,
and my orthodox neighbors generally, take it
for granted that my theological opinions are co
incident with Mr. Parker's, because 1 have in
vited him to preach in my pulpit, and have my^
self preached in his?' I have had the same
friendly intercourse with Swedenborgian, Meth
odist, Baptist, and Presbyterian (or orthodox
Congregattonalist) ministers. They hare preach
ed in my pulpit, and I in theirs, yet I never
heard the friendly intimation that Mr. May had
become, or was becoming " evangelical," when
either of these last named exchanges took place

mands of our Lord that are upon us all, to co
operate with him, and with' Cue another, in the
rederiiption of the world irdm ignorance, sin,
ant misery. When 1 consider the mental and
moral darkness that is shut down upon a large
portion1 of the children pf men, and that over-
hadpwa many, even in the most enlightened
sommunities in Christendom ; when I think of
cud see "the wrong aud outrage with which
aarth is filled," I caDnot, will not stop, to scru
tinize the theological opinions of a man whom
I see laboring generously to dispel the dark
ness, and to correct the wrong, before I give
him my right hand of fellowship, if he is wil
ling to take it.
I respect Theodore Parker because he is a
man of great intellect and of wonderful acqui
sitions. 1 love him, because he consecrates so
much of his knowledge, his genius, aud his elo
quence, to tbe cause of suffering, outraged hu
manity. I honor him because he is no respect
er of persi-ns — doth not regard the rich more
than the poor. As Jesus, our pattern in all
things, did, so does he asBail, most frequently
arid1 fearlessly, "the high and lifted up" in
Church and State, because the vioee of the age,
the giant sin of our times and nation, are en
trenched behind their example and influence.
He is hated, sir in Boston, as our Lord was iri
Jerusalem, not because oi his heterodoxy in the
ology, I believe, so much as because of his ex- >
posure of the vices of the scribes and pharisees,
and rulers of the .people.
It has been told you by Mr. Lee, that in speak
ing of him ouce to Mr. Pinney, 1 called him a
dear son of God. J. had entirely forgotten that
I had ever allowed myself to speak so extrava
gantly in his praise. Aud yet if 1 were called
upon to name those of all the living men I kuow,
who most deserve to be called the dear children
of God, he would be one. lean think of few
who should be put before,him, or. with him, in
that denomination, except; it be William Lloyd
Garrison, and Gerrit Smith, and Wendell Phil
lips, and Heury Ward Beecher, and Horace
Mann, and William H. Furness, and Elihu Bur-
ritt. and William H. Chauning, aye, and Lu-
oretia Mott, aud Harriet Beecher St owe, and
Antoinette L. Brown, aud Lucy Stone, and De-
oorah Dix, and Sallie Holley, aud Abby K. 1'osj
ter. Yes, yes, there are o .her precious souls,
of both sexes, whom it is my privilege to kuow
aud love, that deserve to be placed with these,
nut they are too numerous to mention now.
1'hey are devoting themselves to the cause of
crushed humanity, and that is the cause of
Christ, yes, that is the cause of Christ : uot the
¦mstaining of a system of dogmas, devised by

Why is it sir, that orthodox people areso mucb ^a in the ¦ 4th or 5 th centuries, which, if true

more ready to think evil than good of a man :
The ground of my great regard for Mr. Par
ker, personally, and of my ministerial inter
course with him and with some preachers of th*
different orthodox sects, has not been an agree
ment in our system of theological belief, so
much as a mutual recognition of our right to
differ in our interpretation of the Bible ; ana
still more, a similar appreciation of the great
practical purposes of tbe gospel, and of the de-

would not comfort the afflicted, nor clothe the
,iaked, nor break the yoke of the enslaved.
I have been shocked at some of Mr. Parker's
opinions, and some.imes o.t'euded at his way of ,
mating truths, but, sir, when I see the tremen-
locis blows he strikes at the fouudation vices of
the Church, the State, and society, I respect, and
love him, his opinions on some points notwith
standing. Anil his opinious, sir. let me add, are
less shocking, less derogatory to God, lesa dis-

160

' DiSCtJSSldN ' OP "THfi ' DOCTRINK OP THE ' TRINITT.

couraging to man, thrn the doctrines which, are
given us in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.
and tbe Thirty-nine Articles aid Creeds of' jhe
Episcopal Church; doctrines, which, if they
should be intelligently read to the people, and
enforced individually upon their reception, as
the condition of continued membership, would
empty those Churpfies apace. ',,'
When I first heard pf ypu, brother, Lee, it was
as a man who had generously espoused the cause
of the peeled and .wretched slaves in our coun
try. I heard of your,, battling,, man/ujly with
the Goliah sin of our nation, that has well nigh
subjugated to its base purposes the Church and
the State, the religion and, fhe politics of the
country. Iheard bow faithfully you weredpal-
ing with that teirible; iniquity, as- you found it
secreted and protected by the great Methodist
oaganlzafipn, to which you then belpnged. , I
learnt how nobly ypu, with a few other faithful
ones, came put from that corrupted body, and
setup an altar upon which you might, in godly
sincerity, offer the daily, sacrifice of prayer to
the God of , the oppressed. ; I honored you; for
your fidelity to the right.
Since you came to fhis city, I h^ve heard of
your kindnesses to the outcasts — the fugitives
from our American despotism-*-how you have
sheltered them under your roof, fed them; at
your table, and helped them on their way "to
the land of the free and the asylum of' the op
pressed." My soul has. been^ drawn-towards
you as a good son of God.
I cared not mnch to know what your theolog
ical opinions might be, to enable me to form an
estimate of your Christian charaster,iso longasj
I could see the fruits of the spirit of charity in
your life. And now that I have found, in: thei
course of this discussion, what your opinions
are ; although they appear to me very .tasGrip-1
tural, very irrational, veryu inconsistent with
themselves and self-contradictory, still I will
not withdraw my confidence from you as a man
and a Christian,- so long as I see, that, you
abound in love and good works. And here,
brother Lee, after all our i disputing, is my
right hand of fellowship If you are willing to
receive it. '
Mr. Lee said— I take your hand; and fellow*
ship you as a man and a philanthropist, but 1
have ho fellowship with your theology.

Mr;,Uay— Norl with lyours! jt suppose tha|t
your theology is just as unlike., to mine,.a8iWiM
is to yours. ' , >•
(Then tnrhtog to the audience),. , he [Said:,,!
thank ypu fellow o^ens for ypur,,lpng-cpn».
tinued and patient hearing i of , what we have.
had to say. I have only lo beg of you to r^ad
what we have said, and consider, it well (hat
ypu may understand ; compare our .dpftriBps
arid argprn^nts, with each, other) as jriipaif tiajlyi
as yon may be able, and' both with the teach-,
ings of the; Bible,, and judge for, yaujiselves,
which of the two i» nearer the right.

BEEATA.
QnthelJ;6th.;pageI first1 column, 6th line, af
ter the . marks : ot quotation, read > Peabbdy's
Lectures. Page 21, on the first colnmrijhftlf way down)
should have been introduced a number of /quo
tations given in " Willspn's, ,' Cpncessipns Of
Trinitarians" from Seausqlire et L'E?ifant,,pr.
Wall, Dr. Campbell, Le Cierc, all giving ^the
wisdom of God," "the reason of Gpd," ','ithe
divine intelligence" as the meaning of the Logos.
The quotations were copiedjbnt .accidentally
not sent to; the printer.
26 Page, second column, first line ; instead
of metomysing, readrttfetetafrw.
58 Pajgepfirsfccdumn, thirdline ; instead of
"otherwise," it should be "both ways."
72 Page, second c6hmm, in the tenth, twelfth
and seventeenth lines, instead of ''.text"; read
test." 13Q P^age, first column, 2,Qthline,,|qr ,i!$alium-
niated," read culminated. , ,