1, myself, me, you may substitute either of the names God, or Holy Spirit. But if we believe what the church asserts in the same place, that this person, instead of never being divided, is actually separated into two parts, or "natures," then we must ascertain which nature it is that speaks, or acts, before we can make the substitution.

13. It is proper here to observe, that the Holy Spirit was not called God till more than three hundred years after the time of the apostles. "It was first decreed in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, that the Holy Spirit was Lord,-neither did the ancients address prayers to the Holy Spirit; and they assigned this as their reason; viz. That a gift was not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver of the gift."* The following are the words of Erasmus, in his Annotations on the first epistle to the Corinthians. "No one of the ancients ventured plainly to assert, that the Holy Spirit was of the same substance with the Father and the Son, not even when the question concerning the Son was every where discussed with so much warmth. But now we scruple not to declare, that the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and the Son, very God, of the Father very God, and of the Son very God." In his Preface to Hilary he states the same thing, and in the whole twelve books, which this latter author wrote on the trinity, he never mentions the Holy Spirit as God. He wrote about the middle of the

*Racovian Catechism, translated by Thomas Rees, p. 293, note by B. Wissowatius.

Hilary always speaks of the Holy Spirit as the gift of God, (donum Dei.) In one place he writes thus; "He commands us to

fourth century. Ought we not to be a little surprised at finding a doctrine now insisted upon, as a fundamental article of religion, which was not known in any church till nearly four hundred years after the time of our Saviour?

V. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will add, in as few words as possible, two or three general arguments, which go to prove, that the prevailing sentiments during the time of our Saviour, and also the opinions of the early christians, were in accor dance with what we have seen to be the plain sense of Scripture.

baptise in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; that is, in the confession of the author, of the only begotten, and of the gift," &c. Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti; id est, in confessione et auctoris, et unigeniti, et doni, &c. Ibid. p. 292.

According to Gregory Nazianzen, when this subject first began to be agitated, three distinct opinions were prevalent. First, that the Holy Spirit was an operation; secondly, that it was a created substance; thirdly, that it was God. Των δε καθ' ἡμας σοφων, οἱ μεν ενεργειαν τουτο (το Πνευμα) ὑπελαβον, οἱ δε κτισμα, oi de beov. Orat. 37. Vid. Pearson's Notes, p. 387.

The Jews held to the first of these opinions. They believed the Holy Spirit to be the energy or influence of God, and they supposed it was by this divine energy that the prophets were inspired. Maimonides, in giving the various significations of the Hebrew word spirit, says it sometimes means a "divine intellectual influence," and at others, “a purpose, or volition;" and when it is applied to the Deity, it partakes of both these significations. He thus describes its fifth and sixth significations. Quinto significat () influentiam illam intellectualem divinam a Deo prophetis instillatam, cujus virtute prophetant. Sexto significat propositum, et voluntatem.-Vox hæc quando Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatione, quatenus voluntatem significat. Mor. Nevoch. c. 40, Ibid p. 391.

1. The Jews had no conceptions of any threefold distinction in the Deity. They had for many centuries been under the peculiar guidance of God, and received an express revelation from him in regard to the coming of the Messiah, but they seem never to have had the remotest suspicion, that this Messiah was to be God himself. All the predictions relating to the Messiah, both in the writings of Moses and the prophets, were such as could never lead them to suppose that they referred to the God of Israel. Take for example the words of God, which were spoken by Moses. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Deut. xviii. 18. Is there any thing here about this prophet being the second person in the trinity; or about his being God, or equal to God? On the contrary, is not the declaration express, that he was to be a prophet like Moses; that he was to be raised up, not by his own power, but by the power of God, and was to speak what God commanded him?

The prophets allude to his sufferings and death in such a way as to render it impossible, that they should at the same time be speaking of God. The divine unity was a fundamental doctrine of the religion of the Jews, and nothing probably has contributed so much to keep them from embracing the christian faith, as the idea, that the doctrine of the trinity makes an essential part of it. They cannot be persuaded to believe in any account of the Messiah, which involves a doctrine so inconsistent with their views of the whole tenor of the Old Testament.

Their aversion to this doctrine is so great, that, according to Buxtorf, they make the following article of belief a part of their daily devotions. "I believe with an entire faith, that God, the Creator, is one person, and that the unity, or oneness, which is in him, is not in any other." It is certainly remarkable, if such a doctrine as the trinity were contained in the Old Testament, that the Jews, for whom the whole book was especially designed, should never have found it out.

.

2. It does not appear, that the companions of Jesus while he was upon earth, or the persons who saw, and conversed with him, believed him to be God.. On one occasion, after he had healed a sick man in a miraculous manner, "The multitude marvelled, and glorified God, which had given SUCH POWER UNTO MEN." Matt. ix. 8. It would seem from this pas sage, that the people considered Christ as a man, and. that he performed his miracles by a power, which: he derived from God; as indeed he had already told them.

The way in which Philip described Jesus to Nathanael was as follows; "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John. i. 45. From this language would it ever be suspected, that Philip thought him to be God? When Mary saw him, after the death of her brother Lazarus, she said to him, "if thou hadst been here my brother had not died." Would she have spoken thus, if she had believed him to be the omnipresent God? The people are said in many places to have considered him a prophet. After he had miracu

1

lously fed the five thousand, those present exclaimed, "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." The woman of Samaria said to him, after his conversation with her, "I perceive thou art a prophet." When he asked his disciples, "Whom do men say, that I, the son of man, am," they replied, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Matt. xvi. 14. Here we have the prevailing opinions of the people respecting Jesus, and there is not the remotest hint, that any one considered him to be the most high God. So far from it, that they speak of him in no higher character, than that of one of the old prophets.

3. It is further remarkable, if our Saviour had preached such a doctrine as that of the trinity, that the evangelists should not have stated it explicitly, and taken some pains to explain and enforce it. No doctrine could be more novel, none more important, and none more opposed to the rooted prejudices of the Jews. But when we come to examine, we find nothing said, in the three first gospels, which can have any direct bearing on the subject, and the introduction to the gospel of John admits quite as good an interpretation according to the unitarian, as any trinitarian hypothesis. The strong evidence, which the four gospels contain, that no one in the time of our Saviour thought him to be God, and the entire silence of the evangelists on the subject of a trinity in any form, are objections to this scheme not easily to be answered.

4. Another argument to the same effect is contained in the preaching of the apostles, after the ascension