nature.

But what is he in his human nature more or less than a man. It follows, that if you pray to him in his human nature, you pray to him as man. The conclusion of the whole is, that in the Litany worship is offered to five beings, four of whom are called Gods; and the fifth is addressed under such properties as belong only to a man.

Such is the result to which it appears to me every one will come, who examines the Litany without par.. tiality, and who suffers himself to be governed, in judging of its meaning, by the principles which usually guide him in ascertaining the sense of language. If the words are to be taken in their ordinary acceptation, they certainly cannot be received under any other construction. If you have secret ideas, and hidden correspondences attached to them, it will be easy enough to make them mean any thing. But that interpretation is of a very suspicious character, to say the least, which requires such aids to make it consistent or intelligible; and if we are any where to look for perspicuity, and a plain, natural use of words, one would suppose it ought to be in a settled form of prayer, which makes a part of the divine service of every sabbath. If it be said, that my conclusions are not just, because no episcopalian imagines himself to worship four Gods; I would reply, that I have not drawn these conclusions from any one's opinions, but from the language of the Litany itself. It is but reasonable to suppose, however, that they, who worship in the language of this Litany, have corresponding opinions. To intimate the contrary would be an implied charge of insincerity, which I should be very unwilling to make against any exemplary christian.

I will next proceed to a general consideration of the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is unfolded in the first, second, and fifth articles of the church.

ARTICLE 1. "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

ART. II. "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, 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; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of

men.

ART. V. “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."

To these articles it may be proper to add what is said on the same subject in the Nicene creed, as this is a received form in the church service.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, light of light, very God of very

God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by wliom all things were made.

"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and Son; who, with the Father and Son together, is worshipped and glorified."

The first thing which strikes one on reading these passages is the strangeness of their phraseology. In articles purporting to set forth some of the highest and most essential doctrines of christian faith, most persons would expect to recognize something, which they had seen in the scriptures. It is a remarkable feature in all the explanations, which the church has given of this doctrine, that in scarcely a single instance can you find three words together used in the same connexion as in the Bible. Take the following example. "And in unity of this godhead, there be three persons of one substance, power and eternity." This passage is not in the scriptures. Separate it into parts, and you will be equally unsuccessful in finding them in the word of God. Nothing is said there of the unity of the godhead, or of any substance, which is composed of three persons. Nor can you any where find it expressed in the Bible, that Christ "is the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father;" or that "he took upon him man's nature;" or that in him "were two whole and perfect natures joined together in one person." And above all, you cannot find in the holy scriptures any language, which bears the remotest resemblance to the unintelligible phraseology, "very God and very man," "God of God, light of light, very God of very God." There are no such phrases in the Bible, as "God the Son," and

"God the Holy Ghost;" and instead of any such language as, "holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God," the word trinity is not found in the scriptures. It is a name for which the apostles had no occasion.* In short, so far as language is concerned, it would hardly be possible to conceive of a wider departure from the records of revealed truth, than is found in the phraseology, which the church has thought proper to employ in defining this doctrine of the trinity.

Before we proceed any further, it may be well to take a short view of the different modes in which English writers, and principally those of the church, have explained this doctrine. First, the Athanasians, among whom were Dr. Waterland, Dr. Taylor, and probably archbishop Secker, from the encomium he passes on the Athanasian creed, maintain, that the trinity consists of three distinct, independent, and equal persons, constituting one and the same God; or in other words, that "the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, the Holy Ghost is Almighty, and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty."+

* The word trinity was not used till near the close of the second century, when it first occurs in the works of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch. The terms person and substance were not introduced till the third century, when they were first used in the Sabellian and Noetian controversies.

† In his thirteenth Lecture on the church Catechism, archbishop Secker speaks as follows. "Since, then, there is not a plurality of Gods; and yet the Son and Spirit are each of them God, no less than the Father; it plainly follows, that they are, in a manner by us inconceivable, so united to him, that these three are one; but still, in a manner equally inconceivable; so distinguished from.

Secondly, according to Mr. How's theory, there are three distinct, intelligent hypostases, each having a distinct, intelligent nature, united in some inexplicable manner so as to make one God, in somewhat the same way as the corporeal, sensitive, and intellectual faculties are united to form one man. Thirdly, Dr. Wallis was an advocate for the Sabellian hypothesis, and held, that the three persons in the trinity were only three modes or relations, which the Deity bears to his creatures. This, also, was probably the opinion of archbishop Tillotson. Fourthly, bishop Pearson supposes the Father to be an underived and es sential essence, and the Son to have received every thing by communication from God the Father. "There can be but one person," says he, "originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods." The Son possessed the whole divine nature by communication, not by participation, and in such a way, that he was as really God as the Father. Bishop Bull and Dr. Owen adopted a similar theory.* Fifthly, in the system of

him, that no one of them is the other." Works, vol. vi. p. 126. This is indeed inconceivable, that these three beings should be "each of them God," and at the same time so united as to be “one,” and yet "no one of them to be the other."

* Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Oxford, 1792, vol. i. p. 175, 217. The bishop speaks in further illustration of this doctrine somewhat in the language of the Nicene creed and of Augustin. "The Father is God, but not of God; light, but not of light; Christ is God, but of God; light, but of light. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, hath