one knows, that a human body and a reasonable soul, constitutes a compleat person, or being, this is one person. In his divine nature, they assert, that he is the very Eternal God, and this according to their system, must be as much as one person more, and one, and one, make two, the plain conclusion follows, that the Trinitarian doctrine asserts the Son of God to be two persons.

"But it is asserted that two natures are so mysteriously united, as to constitute but one person. But before I admit the correctness of this system, I must require some other definition of the two natures, than to state the one to be very man, and the other very God; for I need not be taught that very man is one person, and very God another.It would be no more absurd for Trinitarians to assert that God is three persons, and yet but one person, than it is to say, the Son of God is very God, and very man, and yet but one person.

"Did I believe that Jesus Christ was truly and properly a man, and also, the very and eternal God, I would far sooner give up the idea, God is three persons, than the Son is two. How the Trinitarians get along with the difficulty I know not."

In answer to the foregoing remarks, it is to be acknowledged, that the writer has been good enough, to furnish us with all the elementary principles, by which we shall be able, to get along with all the difficulty, and all the objections, this writer hath raised against the article, he has been pleased to select from the Methodist discipline.

The first elementary principle, he has afforded us on this important question, we find in his last publication, page 78, which is as follows, viz. "I

shall now endeavour to show that Christ is prop erly the Son of the one God, and as such a being, distinct from his Father."

And a few lines after he states "the whole dispute may now be reduced to this single question, is Jesus Christ properly the Son of God? and as such, a being distinct from his Father?" And in page 80, he says, "we are abundantly taught in the scriptures, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." He still proceeds, by saying that "Unitarians say, they believe this, but at the same time they affirm, that Christ and his Father are one and the same being."

It is well here, for us to premise-First, That some late trinitarians, as they call themselves, have contended that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father, and have not made any personal distinction between the Father and Son. We find nothing of this doctrine in ancient writers. Not only so, this at once destroys the idea of a Trinity; for Trinity includes an idea of Unity, is the definition of the term Trinity, that is three in one, from the latin words tres and unum. It follows of course, if there is no distinction between the Father and Son, in point of personality, there cannot be but two persons in the divine nature, namely, Father, and Holy Ghost; and this doctrine is not found in ancient writings. Nor in any quotations in modern writers from any of the Fathers, is there any such doctrine. We have always considered it a great and manifest impropriety, in those who hold to this doctrine, professing to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity-and therefore, whoever contends for this kind of doctrine last described as Trinitarianism, must answer for himself, yet such absurdity, ought not to make

you or us abandon the genuine doctrine of the &postles.

Mr. Millard says, "by the Trinitarian doctrine of incarnation, we are taught Jesus Christ is composed of two whole distinct natures, human and divine." This we acknowledge.

Mr. Millard goes on to say, that "in his human nature he is truly and properly a man, and that in his divine nature, he is the very and eternal God." We answer, he has not made his statement exact, according to the Trinitarian articles which we have been acquainted with. The words "a" and "the" do not give the exact sense in his statement, which they do in the methodist article which he refers to; the article reads as follows, viz. "The Son who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature,' &c. Therefore, it is plain in our opinion, that the word THE refers to the Father, and not to the Son; that is, the Son who is the Word of God the Father, which God the Father, is the Eternal God. And in many passages of his work, he has acknowledged the same, consequently in this point there is no dispute.

He refers to the same article in the 54th page of his work, and goes on to say-" took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the God-head and 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 to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also, for actual sin of men.

The material difference which exists between us, is this; Mr. Millard supposes that which pro-< ceeded, and came forth from God, was changed into flesh, in the womb of the virgin, and united to her substance, and that the nature of our Lord, consisted of one constituent part, that is flesh, and that flesh died on the cross; for a proof of this, we turn to page 100 of his works; where we read as follows, "the word was made flesh, which I firmly believe. That which proceeded forth from God, before the foundation of the world, was made flesh in the womb of the virgin, by the power of the Holy Ghost, so that Christ's flesh being made of the Word, united with the seed of the woman, was, and is, far superior to human nature; as Christ proceeded first from God, and was made flesh, he is far superior to man, and is divine." And in page 99, "The Son of God partook of, or proceeded from God his Father, and that the children being made partakers of flesh and blood, he also took (part) not the whole."

Then it seems Mr. Millard states, as his firm belief, viz. that which proceeded forth from God before the foundation of the world was made flesh in the womb of the virgin, by the power of the Holy Ghost. We answer Mr. Millard, by saying, he goes much further in his declaration than John, the beloved apostle, hath given any authority to proceed. John barely states, that "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 does not tell us, that the Word was made flesh in the womb of the virgin, neither by the Holy Ghost. Mr. Millard seems to have proceeded in his positions beyond what Paul did. St.

Paul speaking of the same point of doctrine, informs us, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." And the apostle John informs us several times in his first epistle, "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." And the apostle to the Hebrews, (Helenists) speaking of God's not taking pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices, says, Christ saith, when he came into the world, "a body hast thou prepared me." Hebrews, 10th chapter. The Word of God, or the Son, which proceeded from God, must of consequence be very God in his nature, and infinitely above flesh, or any created being or thing, and infinitely different in his nature from all created things, as to dignity, value or worth; although man is said to be created in the image of God, yet when the creature is compared with the Creator, there is an infinite disproportion between them. Therefore, for us to imagine that the divine nature of Jesus Christ is transubstantiated, or changed into flesh, and that flesh died, and became dormant, would be greatly absurd and ridiculous. And to imagine that which is human can be changed into the divine, would be equally as absurd, for that would be to make that which is created, infinite in its nature, and consequently eternal. And by the same rule of reasoning, it would be impossible that the two natures can be so commixed or transformed, or transfused into one, as to make but one entire nature. And were it possible, that either of the three things above stated could take place in the person of Jesus Christ, we must be almost at an entire loss to know what conclusions to draw from such principles; however, a few conclusions may be safely drawn; if the Son,