knowledge. But these worthy men had been conversant with the Bible, and from that source had insensibly formed the habit of usually speaking of God as only one Person; but this being contrary to the doctrine which they wished to support, they naturally involved inconsistency in their forms of speech.

A volume might be filled with such solecisms from Athanasian writers. And indeed, sir, I very much doubt whether you ever preached a gospel sermon, or ever prayed five minutes, without using pronouns in direct contradiction to your theory.

LETTER V.

The Mystery of the Trinity in Unity unfolded.

REV. SIR,

IN a former letter, I observed to you, that Mr. Jones considered the term God as of "plural comprehension." I therefore classed the noun God with other nouns of "plural comprehension," such as, Council, Senate, Triumvirate, &c.-But since that time I again perused Mr. Jones' performance, and find that I did not fully comprehend his meaning. As I was reading his remarks on 1 Cor. viii. 6. "But to us there is but one God, the Father," I noticed this idea, "the one God, the Father, is the name of a nature under which Christ, as God, is comprehended." I was at first wholly at a loss for his meaning; it however soon occurred to me, that he considered the term God, in this case, as a general or generic term, comprehending a plurality of Persons, of one common nature; as MAN is sometimes used for all mankind. I therefore

pursued the inquiry, to ascertain, if possible, his real meaning. When I came to the part of his book, entitled, the "Conclusion," my apprehension was fully confirmed.

In page so, he says, "That the Persons of God are three in number, precisely distinguished, on some occasions, by the personal names Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit; and also by different offices. That the same term is not always peculiar and proper to the same Person ; because the words God, Lord, Jehovah, and Father, are sometimes applied to one Person and sometimes to another; while at other times they are not personal, but general names of the Divine nature."

In page 81, he observes, "There can be no real Unity in God but that of his nature, essence, or substance, all of which are synonymous terms."

That the three Persons are of the same nature or essence, he considers as proved on this ground, "Berause they partake in common of the name Jehovah, which being interpreted, means the Divine essence; and what it signifies in one Person it must also signify in the others, as truly as the singular name Adam, ` in its appellative capacity, expresses the common nature of all mankind.”

If this be the true Athanasian theory of the Trinity, it is not so mysterious as has been generally supposed; and I suspect, it will be a much less difficult task to explain it, than it will to reconcile it to the sacred Scriptures.

It is obvious, from the passages quoted, that Mr. Jones considers the term GoD, as sometimes used, as a general or generic name, comprising a plurality of Persons of one common nature, just as we use the term

Man, as comprising the whole species. And he also supposes, that God is used in this sense as meaning the Divine nature, when it is said, "But to us there is but one God.”

And as he has given us plainly to understand, that "there can be no real Unity in God but that of his nature,” it is manifest that, on this theory, the Unity of God is the same as the unity of Man. Mr. Jones supposes, that the three Persons in the Deity are all of one nature, that is, of a Divine nature. So all the individual Persons of the human race are, in the same sense, one, they are of one nature, that is, human

nature.

The whole mystery of the Trinity in Unity, according to this theory, results from the ambiguous use of the terms God, Lord, Jehovah, &c. these terms being "sometimes applied to one Person, and sometimes to another; while at other times they are not personal, but general names of the Divine nature." When it is said, there are three Persons in one God, the word God is used "as the name of a nature ;" and the import is simply this, that there are three Persons of the same Divine nature.

On this theory of the Trinity in Unity, I would suggest the following inquiries :—

1. Whether there can be any reasonable objections to the proposition, which affirms that there are as many self-existent Beings as there are self-existent Persons? While it has been maintained that there are three self-existent Persons, it has been affirmed that there is but one self-existent Being. But if the Unity is no more than a unity of nature, why may not each of the Persons be considered as a distinct intelligent Being, according to the natural import of the word

Person? When the word MAN is used "as the name of a nature," it comprises many intelligent Beings; as many as it does of intelligent Persons. Why is it not thus with regard to that ORDER of PERSONS' ineluded under the "general name" God?

2. If it be admitted, that, when it is stated in the Scriptures that to us there is but ONE GOD, that the term GoD is used "as the name of a nature" comprising a plurality of Persons, what evidence can we have that the number of Persons is limited to three? Why may not that order of Persons, which is denominated by the "general name" God, be as great as the number characterized by the general name MAN ? The advocates for the theory will doubtless say, that the Scriptures mention but three Persons; but do the Scriptures say that there are no more than three Persons in God? The Scriptures teach us, that "there is ONE GOD, and that there is none other but HE." And if such declarations do not limit the number of selfexistent Persons, the limits are not ascertained in the Bible by any thing with which I am acquainted.

3. Will it not follow, from this hypothesis, that in the sense that each of three Persons is called God, there are as many distinct Gods as there are distinct Persons ?-When the term GoD is used as "the name of a nature," or as "a general name for the Divine nature," it is easy enough to see, that in this sense there may be no more Gods than one; but Mr. Jones does not suppose that it is always used in this sense; he supposes the same name is sometimes used personally, and applied "sometimes to one of the three Persons, and sometimes to another." This is precisely the case with the word Man. It is sometimes used "as the name of a nature," comprehending the whole

species; yet at other times it is applied in a personal manner, sometimes to one Person, and sometimes to another. John is a man, James is a man, Peter is a man, &c. And when it is used in this sense, it admits of the plural number; and we may say three men, or three hundred men; yea, in this sense there may be as many Men as Persons-And in the sense in which the Father is God, and Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, why are there not as many Gods as Persons ? It is a clear case, that if each of three Persons is one Man, those three Persons are three Men. And analogy will teach us, that if there are three Divine Persons, each of whom is one God, then those three Persons are three Gods.

I am well aware, that this conclusion is not admitted by our Athanasian brethren; but if it do not fairly result from Mr. Jones' premises, I shall rejoice to see the fallacy of the reasoning detected.

On the whole, the hypothesis of Mr. Jones precludes the necessity of any distinction between Person and Being, or intelligent Person and intelligent Being; and under the generic or general name God, it exhibits an ORDER of SUPREME and SELF-EXISTENT INTELLIGENCES, to each of whom the name God may be properly applied; the number of this ORDER of DIVINE INTELLIGENCES he supposes to be but THREE; this, however, is only supposition; there is no certainty in the case. The Divine nature is doubtless as extensive as human nature; and if it include more than one self-existent Person, it may be impossible for us to see why it may not comprise as many Persons as human nature. And as Mr. Jones supposed that not only the word GOD, but also the word LORD, was used both as an "appellative" or general name, and also in