from Platonic principles, and even propounded it in Platonic. language."*

We might produce many more authorities in support of the facts which we have stated. But we conceive it wholly unnecessary. The fair inference from all these facts, every reader, we conceive, is able to draw for himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his apostles, but a fiction of the school of the latter Platonists, introduced into our religion by the early fathers, who were admirers and disciples of the philosophy taught in this school. The want of all mention of it in the scriptures is abundantly compensated by the ample space which it occupies in the writings of the heathen Platonists, and of the Platonizing fathers.

But what we have stated is not the only evidence which Ecclesiastical history affords against this doctrine. The conclusion to which we have just arrived is confirmed by other facts, to some of which we have already adverted, and others of which we can now barely mention; by the facts of its gradual introduction; of its slow growth to its present form; of the strong opposition which it encountered; and of its tardy reception among the great body of common Christians.†

We have thus given an account of the reasons, why we do not believe the doctrines held by Trinitarians, respecting the nature of God, and the person of Jesus Christ. It is rare, it seems to us, that any popular error is so assailable and vulnerable on every side. We shall not recapitulate what we have written. We have endeavoured to express ourselves as concisely as possible. If any one should think our arguments of force; but yet not be fully satisfied of their correctness, it will be but the labour of an hour or two, to read them over again. The time will be well spent, if it should contribute toward freeing his belief from an essential error; and giving him clearer, juster, and consequently more honourable views of Christianity. It will be well spent, even if he should merely be led to think more correctly of a large portion of his fellow Christians, to perceive that they are not fair objects of all those outrages which have been directed against them; and that they have not adopted their opinions through any want of reverence for the scriptures.

Charge iv. § 2. published in Horsley's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley.

On these subjects, see Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions respecting the person of Christ.

We proceed now to remark upon the passages adduced by Trinitarians in support of their opinions, and upon the proper mode of interpreting these passages. What we have already said requires no familiar acquaintance with the science of theology, in order to be readily apprehended. It is addressed to the plain good sense of every intelligent reader. The arguments which we have used, with the exception, perhaps, of our account of the origin of the doctrine, are such, that those who are, and those who are not familiar with theological studies, may be equally competent to judge of their correctness. But in what we have to say respecting the interpretation of these passages, we must occupy somewhat different ground, and enter the confines of critical learning. We shall endeavour, and we hope not without success, to be as clear as possible; but the subject necessarily involves statements, remarks, reasonings, and criticisms of such a character, that they may not be apprehended with perfect ease; nor their force and correctness at once perceived, by one altogether unacquainted with these studies. Before, however, entering on the main question respecting the proper mode of inter preting these passages, we shall premise two or three general

remarks.

We have already, we conceive, furnished some direct answer to the argument founded upon these passages. We have done this, if there be any truth in the remark which we have made, that these passages alone afford sufficient materials for disproving the main doctrine which they are brought to support, the doctrine that Christ is God. We think, as we have said, that a large proportion of them contain language, which cannot be used concerning God, which necessarily distinguishes Christ from God, and which clearly represents him as an inferior and dependent being.

We wish to recal another remark to the recollection of our readers. It is, that the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians, upon the supposition of their truth must have been taught in the scriptures, in a manner very different from what it can be pretended, that they are. Let any one recollect that neither the doctrine of the Trinity, nor that concerning the double nature of Christ are any where directly taught; and then let him look over the passages which are brought to prove proposition, that Christ is God; let him consider how they are collected from one place and another, and how thinly they are found scattered through the New Testament; let him observe that in a majority of the books of the New Testament, there are none on which a prudent reasoner would choose to

the

rely; and then let him remember the general tenor of the Christian scriptures, and the undisputed meaning of far the greater part of their language in relation to this subject. Having done this, we think he may safely say, before any critical examination of the meaning of these passages, that their meaning must have been mistaken; that the evidence adduced appears altogether defective in its general aspect; and that it is not by such detached passages as these, taken in a sense opposed to the general tenor of scripture, that a doctrine like that in question can be established. We might, it seems to us, almost as reasonably attempt to prove, in opposition to the daily witness of the heavens, that there are three suns instead of but one, by building an argument on the accounts which we have of parhelia.

Another remark of some importance is, that, as Trinitarians differ much in their accounts of the doctrine, so are they not well agreed in their manner of defending it. When the doctrine was first introduced, it was defended as Bishop Horsley tells us, "by arguments drawn from Platonic principles.' To say nothing of these, some of the favorite arguments from scripture of the ancient fathers, were such as no Trinitarian at the present day would choose to insist upon. One of those, for instance, which was adduced to prove the Trinity, is found in Ecclesiastes, iv. 12. "A threefold cord is not soon broken." Not a few of the fathers, says Whitby, explain this concerning the Holy Trinity.* Another passage often adduced, and among others by Athanasius, as declarative of the generation of the Son from the substance of the Father, was discovered in the first verse of the 45th Psalm. The argument founded upon this, disappears altogether in our common version, which renders: "My heart is inditing a good matter." But the word in the Septuagint, corresponding to matter in the common version, is Logos; and the fathers understood the passage thus: My heart is throwing out a good Logos.† A proof, that the second person in the Trinity became incarnate, was found in Proverbs ix. 1. "Wisdom hath builded her house;" for the second person, or the Son, was regarded in the theology of the times as the Wisdom of the Father. These are merely specimens taken from among many of a similar character, a number more of which may be found in the work of Whitby just referred to in our notes. Since the first

Whitby Dissertatio de Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum Patrum Commentarios, pp. 95, 96.

† Ib. p. 75.

‡ Ib. p. 92.

introduction of the doctrine, the mode of its defence has been continually changing. As more just notions respecting the cri ticism and interpretation of the scriptures have slowly made their way, one passage after another has been dropped from the Trinitarian roll. Some, which are relained by one expositor, are given up by another. Professor Stuart has expressly abandoned one or two which have been commonly among those first quoted, and has neglected to bring forward others. But this procedure is not peculiar to him. Even two centuries ago, Calvin threw away, or depreciated the value of many texts, which most Trinitarians would think hardly to be spared. There are, we believe, not many of much importance in the controversy, the orthodox exposition of which has not been given up by some one or more of the principal Trinitarian critics among Protestants. Among the Catholics, there are many by whom it is rather affirmed than conceded, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not to be proved from the scriptures, but rests for its support upon the tradition of the church.

But these remarks are merely preliminary. We now proceed to our main purpose in this part of the article, which is to show in what manner the passages adduced by Trinitarians are to be regarded and understood, so far as these passages may in fact appear to favour their doctrines.

one.

The state of the case then, as far as it regards the interpretion of these passages, we conceive to be this. Our opponents quote certain texts, and explain them in a meaning which, regarding only some particular expressions in these texts, goes to support their opinions. We explain the same texts in a very different meaning; and believe our sense to be the true The words, considered in themselves, will perhaps bear either meaning, that of our opponents, as well as our own. We will at least concede, for the sake of argument, that this is the In what manner, then, are we to decide which meaning, is the true one? How are we to determine, whether the meaning in which we explain any passage, or that which is put upon it by our opponents, is the sense which was intended by the writer?

In order to answer these questions, we must enter into a little explanation, concerning the nature of language, and the principles of its interpretation. The art of interpretation derives its origin from the intrinsic ambiguity of language. What we mean to express by this term, is the fact, that a very large proportion of sentences, considered in themselves, merely in respect to the words of which they are composed, are capable of expressing not one meaning only, but two or more different

meanings; or, (to state this fact in other terms) that in very many cases, the same sentence, like the same single word, may be used to express very different senses. Now, in a great part of what we find written concerning the interpretation of language, and in a large proportion of the specimens of criticism which we meet with, especially upon the scriptures, this fundamental truth, this fact, which lies at the very bottom of the art of interpretation, has been entirely overlooked, or at least not regarded in its relations and consequences. We will illustrate it by a single example. St. John thus addresses the Christians, to whom he was writing, in his first epistle, ii. 20.

"Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and know all things."

If we consider these words in themselves merely, we shall perceive how uncertain is their signification, and how many different meanings, they may be used to express. The first clause, 'Ye have an anointing from the Holy One,' may signify,

1. Through the favour of God, ye have become Christians, or believers in Christ: anointing being a ceremony of consecration, and Christians being considered as consecrated and set apart from the rest of mankind.

2. Or it may mean, Ye have been truly sanctified in heart and life: a figure borrowed from outward consecration being used to denote inward holiness.

3. Or, Ye have been endued with miraculous powers: consecrated as prophets and teachers in the Christian community.

4. Or, Ye have been well instructed in the truths of Christianity.*

We forbear to mention other meanings, which the words. might be used to express. These are sufficient for our purpose.

The term, Holy One, in such a relation as it holds to the other words in the present sentence, may denote either God, or Christ, or some other being.

Ye know all things literally expresses the meaning, Ye have the attribute of omniscience. Beside this meaning, it may signify, Ye are fully acquainted with all the objects of human knowledge; or, Ye know every truth connected with Christianity; or, Ye have all the knowledge necessary to form your faith, and direct your conduct; or the proposition may require some other limitation, for all things is one of those terms, the meaning of which is continually to be restrained and

See Wetstein's notes on this passage, and on 1 Tim. iv. 7.