the flesh of other animals, and consequently they substituted the unclean for the clean. They were so dissatisfied with the manner in which God had defined their duty, that they defined it for themselves by offering swine's flesh.

But is it true that the definitions of doctrine, as given by Trinitarians, are better than those given by Christ? We think not. Promises of salvation are expressly made to all who embrace the gospel as it is defined by Christ and the Apostles. But no promise is made to the Trinitarian as such. There is no scripture which asserts that whosoever believes in the Trinity, or in the two natures, or in the Son's equality with the Father, or in the divinity of Christ, shall be saved. Nor does any scripture assert that whosoever believeth not these doctrines shall be damned. But if no promise is made to him who embraces the gospel as it is defined by Trinitarians, and no threatening against him who does not embrace it as thus defined, is not this sufficient evidence that their definitions are not correct? All who believe on Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, have an assurance from Christ himself, of everlasting life. All who do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God, are assured, by the same authority, that they shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on them. What, then, does the true believer gain by admitting the doctrine of the Trinity? If it does not secure to him a single promise, nor shield him from a single threatening, of what use can it possibly be to him? It cannot make one hair either white or black..

But it would be well for christianity if the human fixtures which have been appended to it, were merely useless. But this is far from being the case. The new definitions which Trinitarians have given of the way to heaven, instead of making it more plain, have greatly

obscured it. With their pretended improvements, it is no longer a HIGHWAY cast up. It has become private property, full of gates, and bars, and intricate windings.

Previous to the crucifixion of our blessed Saviour, but one article of faith was made essential to the believer, viz. that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Subsequently the doctrine of the resurrection was added. Hence St.

Paul says, "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." These two articles were all which the apostles required as the terms of christian character and eternal salvation. And they contain plain and simple propositions, which every body can understand. But now, in some churches, there are not less than thirty or forty articles of faith, all purporting to be essential to salvation. And some of them involving such nice distinctions as scarcely to be comprehended by any created mind. Take, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, as described by the learned, the pious, and the orthodox Bishop Beverage.

"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us, Matt. xxviii. 19. First, the Father, and then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost; every one of which is really and truly God. A mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must have a great care how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to mistake in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person? Or, three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature? If we speak of it, how hard it is to find out words to express it? If I say, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be three, and every one distinctly God, it is true; but if I say, they be three, and

every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say, that the Father is one God, and the Son is another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that he begat another God. And from the Father and the Son proceedeth another who is God; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son proceedeth another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father, be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it."*

The Bishop, a few pages farther on, adds,-" This is the principal, if not the only characteristical note whereby to distinguish a christian from another man; yea, from a Turk; for this is the chief thing that the Turks both in their Koran and other writings upbraid christians for, even because they believe a Trinity of persons in the divine nature. For which cause they frequently say, they are people that believe God hath companions; so that, takẹ away this article of our christian faith, and what depends upon it, and there would be but little difference between a Christian and a Turk."

If the Bishop is correct, I ask with the deepest concern, "Who then can be saved? There is not probably one Trinitarian in a thousand that could define the doctrine correctly, without the Bishop's copy to write by. "So

* Bishop Beverage's Private Thoughts, Part II. p. 48, 49.

hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright." And yet we are assured it is as dangerous to get it wrong as it is difficult to get it right.

Dr. Barrow describes the doctrine of the Trinity thus : "There is one divine nature or essence, common unto three Persons incomprehensibly united, and ineffably distinguished; united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of subsistence; that there is a mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one; a communication without deprivation or diminution in the communicant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, without precedence or succession, without proper causality or dependence; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit issuing from both, without any division or multiplication of essence."

To one who seeks for ideas with words, what can all this signify? It is totally unintelligible. It is a mere jumble of words without sense or meaning. Professor Stewart, one of the most learned Trinitarians in the world, who stands at the head of his profession, speaking of the definitions of person, or distinction in the Godhead, says, "I do not, and cannot understand them. And to a definition I cannot consent, still less defend it; until I do understand what it signifies. I have no hesitation in saying, that my mind is absolutely unable to elicit any distinct and certain ideas, from any of the definitions of person in the Godhead, which I have ever examined."†

And why cannot Trinitarians be understood? Is it not because the writers themselves had no ideas to express ? St. Augustine being questioned on this subject, said, 'Human learning is scanty, and affords not terms to ex

* Barrow's Works, Vol. iv. p. 307. London, 1831.

+ See Leonard's Unity of God, p. 237.

B

press it; it is therefore answered, three persons, not as if that was to the purpose, but somewhat must be said, and we must not be silent."—Aug. de Trin. L. 5, c. 9.

This is partly true and partly false. It is true that he who says, God is three persons, does not speak "to the purpose." But it is not true that the poverty of language, or the scantiness of learning, makes it impossible for Trinitarians to be understood. It is because "somewhat must be said," and they talk words without ideas. One who has "distinct and certain ideas," can express them. When I say God is a spiritual, self-existent, and eternal Being, I know what I mean, I have ideas. Others, too, can elicit ideas from my words. If Trinitarians had ideas of the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, if they meant any thing by it, they could certainly tell what they meant. Others, too, could understand them. They could "elicit ideas from their words."

Bishop Tillotson, speaking of the "jargon and canting language" of the schoolmen, says, "I envy no man the understanding these phrases; but to me they seem to sigrify nothing but to have been words invented by idle and conceited men, which a great many ever since, lest they should seem to be ignorant, would seem to understand; but I wonder most, that men, when they have amused and puzzled themselves and others with hard words, should call this explaining things."-Tillotson's Works, Vol. vi. p. 383.

"The language of scripture is the language of common sense; the plain, artless language of nature. Why should writers adopt such language as renders their meaning obscure; and not only obscure, but unintelligible; and not only unintelligible, but utterly lost in the strangeness of their phraseology."-Dr. Dwight.

66

Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be under