two latter eternal and necessary emanations from the Fa ther the Son by generation, the Holy Spirit by procession that they are in all other respects equal to each other, but united together by a mutual penetration of each other's substance, which is called Emperichoresis, or Circumincession. See Ben Mordecai's Letters, p. 999.

This was the doctrine of Athanasius himself, and of the Nicene fathers amongst the ancients, and of Bishop. Bull amongst the moderns. It is supposed by its advocates to possess all the advantages of the doctrine of the Realists while, by the peculiar hypothesis of the Emperichoresis, it precludes the charge of Tritheism,

It is a great objection against this scheme, that the em perichoresis, or mutual penetration of the divine substances, which is the grand peculiarity of it, is unfounded both in reason and in revelation, and is absolutely unintelligible.

If the hypothesis means to assert the existence of three absolutely perfect beings, whose knowledge, power, and will uniformly coincide, and who occupy the same infinite space, it is open to the celebrated objection of Locke and Wollaston against a plurality of infinite beings: for two or more such beings cannot even in idea be separated or distinguished from one being. Their existence therefore can be of no use: it can account for no phænomena, and is utterly incredible and absurd.

It is well known that what is called the Athanasian creed does not express the doctrine of Athanasius himself, and is a forgery of much later date.

From a comparison of the preceding schemes it is obvious to remark:

1. That however the advocates of the Real and Nominal systems may agree in the use of the same language, their ideas are in fact as widely distant as those of the Unitarians and the Tritheists; one party maintaining that there is but one God, whose three attributes are called by different

z 2

1

different names, or who himself bears different names when acting under different relations; the other party affirming the existence of three distinct infinite minds, participating of the same nature and substance, equal in power and glory.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity in every shape and under every explanation is utterly incredible; and the admission of it among christians as an article of belief, and a revealed truth, is to rational unbelievers a great objection against the divine origin of christianity, and one of the greatest impediments to its progress in the world.

The Jews, the Mahometans, and all serious believers in the Unity of God, regard the doctrine of the Trinity with abhorrence, as an infringement upon the most fundamental article of natural religion.

The nice distinctions, the metaphysical subtilties, and the scholastic jargon, which have been introduced into the Trinitarian controversy, naturally lead unbelievers to conclude that christianity is a system of abstruse speculation rather than of useful practical truth; and therefore that it cannot be of divine original.

Further Intelligent unbelievers, and men of no religion, when they observe that persons, whose real sentiments are so directly opposite to each other, as those of the Realists and Nominalists, can nevertheless agree in the use of the same ambiguous language to impose upon the simplicity of unlearned christians, are easily led to conclude that the teachers of christianity are not themselves believers in its divine authority, but that they profess it as a craft to maintain themselves at the expense of their deluded followers.

Hence it may naturally be expected that mere statesmen, who are indifferent to all religions, will conclude that christianity, like other superstitions, may be usefully employed as an engine of state; by a hypocritical profession of which,

and

and a liberal support of a class of persons who shall be authorized to teach the creed of the state, they may maintain a great political ascendancy over the minds of the ignorant and superstitious vulgar.

Hence likewise, regarding all teachers of religion as hypocrites or enthusiasts, they are disposed to oppress and persecute those, who, animated with a truly christian zeal to restore the religion of Jesus to its primitive purity, enter their public and solemn protest against prevailing and established errors, and to inflict pains and penalties upon such persons, as disturbers of the public peace: thus fixing upon the christian religion the stigma of persecution, which is most opposite to its true nature, and exciting still more strongly the prejudices of unbelievers against it.

3. From these considerations, and upon these princi ples, the Unitarians justify their exertions to detect the corruptions of the christian doctrine, and to represent christianity in its true light, as the revelation of a future life of reward and punishment, confirmed by the resurrection of Christ from the dead: a doctrine of the great est practical importance, and in the reception of which all christians are agreed. And till this reformation is accomplished, they have little hope that the christian revelation will meet with general reception, or that any considerable moral advantage is to be expected from those abstruse, complicated, and unintelligible systems of faith which often assume the name of christianity, and of which the genuine doctrine of Christ commonly constitutes a very limited proportion.

IV. To avoid the difficulties attending all explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity, a fourth class of professed Trinitarians have contented themselves with adopting, as they say, "Scripture language," at the same time declining all explanation of the subject.

They

They content themselves with observing, that the Scripture teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each of them truly God; divine names, titles, and attributes, works, and worship being ascribed to each. They observe also, that the same Scripture likewise teaches that there is but one God: each of these positions, therefore, must be in some sense true. But in what sense the divine persons are three, and in what respect they are one, is not explained; it is therefore, say they, presumption in any one to attempt it: and being a doctrine of pure revelation, it ought to be left in the simplicity and obscurity of the Scripture language. This hypothesis, therefore, affirms that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. But it leaves it doubtful whether the personality of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit be a real or a modal personality: that is, whether the three persons be three distinct intelligent agents, or three modes, attributes, relations or distinctions of the same intelligent Be ing.

Where nothing is affirmed, nothing can be denied: but it may behove the advocates for the use of this ambiguous and unmeaning phraseology to consider,

1. Whether they can seriously maintain that there is any medium between the Real and the Nominal schemes; in other words, whether they are not under a necessity of admitting that the three persons in the Trinity either are, or are not, three distinct intelligent agents,

2. Whether they can seriously believe that the Scriptures have left it a matter of doubt whether there be three equal intelligent beings, all of whom are the proper objects of worship; or whether one Being alone is revealed as the object of religious adoration, by whatever names or cha racters he may be described.

3. Whether they are themselves seriously in doubt concerning

concerning the Scripture doctrine upon this subject; and whether this doubt arises from the obscurity of the Scriptures, or from their own voluntary inattention to the subject, and their unwillingness to take sufficient pains to gain satisfaction upon a subject of such high importance.

4. Whether it be not a concern of the greatest magnitude, and well deserving the most serious inquiry, to determine whether the object of religious worship be one, or three infinite beings.

5. Whether it be a mark of real respect to the Scriptures to use their language without ascertaining its meaning; and whether this be not the way to keep themselves and others in perpetual ignorance; also, whether they must not allow that it is the proper province of reason to investigate the true sense of the Scriptures.

6. Whether the indisposition to inquire and to attain clear and definite ideas upon a subject of such great and acknowledged importance as the doctrine of the Trinity, does not in some measure arise from an unworthy fear of the result of these inquiries, and from a secret suspicion that the question will not bear examination.

7. Let it also be very seriously considered, whether the common use of ambiguous language, which will ne cessarily lead plain and unlearned christians to conclude that there are THREE objects of religious worship, while the person who uses such language is himself persuaded that there is, or at least that there may be, only ONE, be consistent with the true simplicity of the christian character; and whether it does not justly expose the person who uses it to the charge of "handling the word of God de, ceitfully."

THE END.

Printed by R. and A. Taylor, Shoe Lane, London.