the Bible that the work of creation is ascribed to the Father, to the Word of God,- to the Spirit of God, and to the Hand of God; why then have we not as good evidence that God is at least four persons, as that he is three. It is, however, my belief that as, when any work is ascribed to the Hand of Moses, or the Word of Moses, the meaning is the same as when it is ascribed directly to Moses; so, when any work is ascribed to the Word, the Spirit, or the Hand of the Lord, the meaning is the same as when it is directly ascribed to Jehovah himself. The explanation which has now been given respecting what is ascribed to the Hand of God, would doubtless be admitted as correct by those who believe that God is three persons. Let them then only extend the principle to what is ascribed to the Word and the Spirit of God, and they may find that the hypothesis that God is three persons, is as needless as the hypothesis that he is four persons.

11. Suppose that, on an impartial examination of the Scriptures, the following facts should be discovered as unquestionably true; That in as many as thirty instances God is styled "the Holy THREE of Israel;" that in many other cases he is styled the Holy THREE," or "the high and lofty THREE," but never "the Holy One"; that, in speaking of themselves, the Holy THREE are accustomed to the use of this language, "We are the God; and besides us there is no God," "Thou shalt have no other gods before us;" that there are several thousands of pronouns for God, Jehovah, the Most High, all of which are in the plural form, excepting three or four, as we, our, us, not I, my, me; that all the prayers and every ascription of praise, which are found in the Bible as addressed to God, are addressed to the Holy THREE, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Now what would be thought of learned Christians who should treat all this evidence as nothing, and boldly subscribe a creed which declares that God is one person only? Should we not think we had good reason to say, that they are remarkably blinded by their prejudices? Suppose once more, that these Unitarians should not only treat as of no weight such a flood of evidence that God is Three, but also treat the believers in that doctrine as unworthy of the Christian name; would not such conduct not only grieve but astonish all candid and well-informed men?

In making the preceding suppositions, I have only supposed the reverse of what is in fact true, as to the evidence which the Bible affords that God is but one person. He is thirty

times styled "the Holy ONE of Israel," - many other times. he is called "the Holy One," or "the high and lofty One." He says, "I am God; and besides me there is no God; "Thou shalt have no other gods before me;" and it is a solemn fact that every prayer, and every ascription of praise addressed to God in the Bible, is addressed to him as one person only, and he is never styled or addressed as the Holy Three. I shall therefore leave it to others to estimate the wisdom and candor of those who reject all this evidence,subscribe a creed which declares God to be three distinct persons, and deny even the Christian name to those who believe that God is but one person.

12. For a long time it seems to have been taken for granted by a large portion of Christians, that the Word, as a distinct person of the Godhead, was united to Jesus of Nazareth, in a peculiar manner, and tabernacled in the flesh in such a sense as cannot be admitted or supposed to be true of the Father or the Holy Spirit. It may, therefore, be of great importance to inquire seriously, whether the Scriptures afford any clear foundation for this commonly received opinion. That the inquiry proposed may be answered correctly, I shall aim to exhibit the principal things which I have found in the Bible relating to the union of each of the supposed persons of the Godhead, with "the man Christ Jesus," or their dwelling in him.

First. In regard to the Word, we have the following declaration; "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." John i. 14. This, if I mistake not, is all or nearly all that can be found in the Scriptures, on which the opinion could have been founded, that the Word was in a peculiar manner united to the Messiah, so as to be with him one and the same person, and distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of equal dignity with the Father.

What, then, is meant by the phrase "was made flesh"? It surely cannot be meant, that a person equal with the Father was transubstantiated, or changed into flesh. What intelligent person would not be shocked at such an hypothesis? Instead of "the Word was made flesh," Dr. Campbell gives the following translation: "The Word became incarnate." Admitting this to be a correct translation, we have still to ask, What is meant by becoming incarnate? "Clothed with flesh, -embodied with flesh," is the definition of Johnson and Walker. Any thing, therefore, may be said to be incarnate which

dwells in flesh, or a human body, so as to be "clothed" or "embodied." Jesus spoke of his body as a "temple"; and it may perhaps be found, that the whole supposed family of divine persons equally dwelt in this temple, and were equally united to it.

Secondly. That the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, was united to Jesus and dwelt in him we have abundant evidence. His title, the Messiah, or the Christ, is expressive of this union; for it means the anointed," and we are assured that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." This anointing was foretold by Isaiah. John the Baptist had a sign or token revealed to him by which he was to know the Messiah. This token was a visible emblem of the descent of the spirit in the form of a dove. Jesus was baptized by John, and, as he "went up straightway out of the water, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him." Of this event John says, "I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God." He further testified, "He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him." To possessing the spirit of God, Jesus ascribed his power to cast out devils; "If I by the spirit of God cast out devils, the kingdom of God is come unto you." So perfectly was Jesus anointed with this Spirit, that he was enabled to baptize his Apostles, or endow them with miraculous powers. As an emblem of the manner in which they were to be baptized or immersed, Jesus "breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." As the spirit of God and the breath of God mean the same thing, this may account for his breathing on them as an emblem of the manner in which they were to be baptized with the Spirit. This Holy Spirit was what he personified under the name of the Comforter, which he promised to send them to be their guide after his ascension. Of this Comforter he said to the Apostles, "He dwelleth in you and shall be in you." Suppose then, that we are to regard the Word and the Spirit as two divine persons, is it not a clear case, that we have much more said of the incarnation of the spirit, than we have of the incarnation of the Word? By dwelling in Jesus, they equally became incarnate, became embodied, or dwelt in human flesh, as in a temple consecrated by God to the purpose of manifesting his power, wisdom, and love.

Thirdly. What evidence have we that the Father was united to the Messiah and dwelt in him? In reply to this question, I shall regard the testimony of the Messiah himself as sufficient. During the memorable interview between Jesus and his Apostles, in the evening prior to his crucifixion, he made a remark which led Philip to say, "Show us the Father and it sufficeth us." Jesus replied, Jesus replied," Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake." John xiv. 9, 10, 11.

No further testimony seems necessary to convince the impartial Christian that the Father dwelt in the Messiah in a most intimate and efficacious manner, so that the words uttered by Jesus were the words of the Father, and the miraculous works of Jesus were works which the Father "did by him."

For what important purpose, then, could it have been needful that one or two other divine persons should dwell in the Messiah? So far as either sufficiency or dignity was concerned, no addition would have been made by the indwelling of more than one infinite person. If the Father dwelt in Jesus by his own all-sufficient Spirit or Word, will not this account for all that is said of the union of the Word and Spirit with the Messiah? And does not this accord with Paul's testimony that "it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell?"

13. Having some further inquiries to make, I shall mention two rules, which to me seem of importance to be observed in our attempts to ascertain the meaning of difficult passages of Scripture.

First. When a text seems to present two or more meanings, we should inquire which of the different meanings appears less to accord with the unquestionable and general meaning of other passages of Scripture relating to the same question or subject.

Secondly. To ascertain the meaning of a particular text, or of particular words and passages, as used in relation to God or the Messiah, we should consider what would have been

their meaning had they been used in regard to Moses or any other eminent person.

With these rules in view, the following inquiry may be proposed:

Was not the Messiah a person properly distinct from any other person who is represented as dwelling in him? Moses said to the Israelites, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me." The Spirit and the Word doubtless dwelt in Moses, for "the Law came by Moses," and God spoke by Moses. But was not Moses a person

distinct from the Spirit or the Word? This will be answered in the affirmative. If then, the Messiah was like unto Moses, we may believe that he was truly a person distinct from the Word or the Spirit of God. But while I believe that Jesus was a person distinct from any person who dwelt in him, I think he was not the Messiah independent of God's anointing him with the Holy Spirit. By this anointing he became the Messiah, and was consecrated to that office. But as Moses was a person prior to his being endowed with miraculous powers, so I suppose it was with the Messiah.

When we read that the Father, the Word, or the Spirit dwelt in Jesus, the forms of speech clearly convey the idea that Jesus was a person distinct from any divine person, or divine attribute, which became united to him. When Jesus

said, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," the me and he are evidently different persons. When a parent speaks of himself and his son, or a son speaks of himself and his father, two persons are always presented to our mind. So when any one person speaks of himself and another person as united with him, two different persons are ever brought to view.

We have, to say the least, as much evidence that the Father and the Spirit dwelt in Jesus, and were united to him, as we have that it was so in regard to the Word. If then, like the Father, the Word and the Spirit are divine persons, will it not follow that in the Messiah there were four different persons, Jesus as one, and a Trinity of divine persons?

14. In view of the two rules of interpretation which have been mentioned, the following queries may be proposed with some confidence:

What appears to be the general meaning of the Bible in regard to the personality of the Word and the Spirit of God,