Word of Christ raised Lazarus from the dead; might we hence infer, that the word of Christ is a second person of the Messiah, equal with Jesus? If not, why should we from similar language infer, that God and his Word are two distinct persons? Whatever is done by the Word of a man is done by the man; in the same way we should infer, that what is done by the Word of God, or by the spirit of God, is done by God himself. All this is according to the common acceptation of language. When a writer departs from this use of language, he either writes incorrectly, or he uses the words in a figurative

sense.

8. God communicates his revelations to us in the language of men, and we must suppose that he uses words in a sense known to men, or they would not contain revelations. For they would be to us words without meaning, and could communicate to us no idea. God is to us invisible, and we can have no idea of the manner in which effects are produced by him, otherwise than by supposing something pertaining to him analogous to those members or properties by which effects are produced by us. Hence God is represented in the Scriptures as having eyes and ears, arms, hands, fingers and feet, a mouth, a tongue, lips, breath, and speech or Word. By the use of such members, or properties, we produce effects; and God is represented as producing effects in a similar manner. Yet it is possible, and perhaps probable, that what is called his spirit, includes all that is meant by most of the members he is represented as possessing, such as his arms, hands, fingers, his mouth, breath, and word. For it is very certain that these are often used as synonymous with his spirit. His arm, hand, finger, breath, and word, are expressive of his power; and so is his spirit and his word. In Matt. xii. 28, Christ is represented as saying, "If I by the spirit of God cast out devils." In Luke xi. 20, the same idea is thus expressed, "If I by the finger of God cast out devils." What then can be more certain, than that in such cases the spirit of God means the same as the finger of God. So a man's spirit or power may often be represented as his hand or finger; or that may be ascribed to a man's hand or finger which is effected by his breath, spirit, energy, or word.

9. Every member or property of a man may be personified and spoken of as though it was a distinct person. How often do we personify his arm, his hand, his mouth, his tongue, his

breath, and his word. To each of these human agency is often ascribed, as though they were personal agents. In like manner, the arm, the hand, and the finger of God are personified, as well as his Word and spirit, or breath. But when we personify the arm or hand of man, or his breath or his word, it is seldom, I believe, that learned men make such mistakes as to suppose that by these members, or personified properties, are really meant several distinct persons in one man. Why then, should they not evince equal wisdom, or equal candor, when the attributes or properties of God happen to be personified in the Scriptures? This would be no more than judging from analogy as to the meaning of Scripture personifications. But when they convert such personifications into real persons, do they not in fact depart from all known analogies in the use of language? And have they not as good ground for affirming that a man is three distinct persons as for affirming this of God?

We read of "the Word of Christ," and of "the Spirit of Christ," as well as of the Word and Spirit of God. We also are informed that the Messiah is "the image of the invisible God." If then, God is three distinct persons, why may we not infer that the Messiah is also three distinct persons.

10. Is it not a solemn truth that the Hand of God is more frequently personified in the Bible, than either his Word or his Spirit? Besides, one of the principal arguments to prove that the Word and the Spirit of God are persons equal with the Father is this, that the same divine works are ascribed to the Word and the Holy Spirit as to the Father, — and particularly the work of creation. Let us then see whether, on the same ground, the Hand of God should not be regarded as a fourth distinct person of the Godhead. Let Jehovah himself be the witness in this case. "Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, for all these things hath my HAND made." — Isa. lxvi. 1, 2. "Mine HAND also hath laid the foundations of the earth."— xlviii. 13. Hear too what God has said of his ARM, which perhaps implies the HAND. "Mine ARM shall judge the people, and on mine ARM shall they trust." Can any thing short of a person equal with God be competent to judge the people, or be to them a proper object of trust? Yet who has supposed the HAND or the ARM of God, to mean a distinct person equal with the Father? Full evidence can be produced from

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.