strate the doctrine, as we profess it, to be absurd, let them candidly acknowledge this inability; and let them not persist in misrepresenting our belief, and then triumph in refuting what we never asserted. It is easy to avail themselves of the obscurity with which, in our present state of imperfect knowledge, we are obliged to speak of this mystery, and thence to argue that we believe we know not what; but arguments of this kind may with equal force be used with respect to the very being of a God, his eternity, selfexistence, and omnipresence, of which we cannot form more adequate ideas, than of his existence in a trinity of persons, as set forth in divine revelation.

4. In my "Short Defence," it was not my intention to consider the doctrine of the Trinity any further than was necessary in speaking to that of Christ's divinity, and, therefore, I did but quote two passages of Scripture expressly upon that head. The first was, 1 John v. 7, the authenticity of which has, indeed, been called in question, and concerning which the illustrator asserts, that "it is not to be found in any ancient manuscript;" page 38. This assertion is not true; but as it would take up too much room

in this "Short Defence" to give a fair statement of the controversy relative to this text, I must refer my reader to Mr. Travis's letters to Mr. Gibbon, in which he will find it satisfactorily proved, that this passage had a place in the authentic Epistles of St. John. The illustrator adds, that allowing this text to be genuine, it is but supposed to contain the doctrine of the Trinity; because, in fact, it expresses no more than that more than that "three agree in giving the same testimony." If "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," are three that bear record in heaven, then the doctrine of the Trinity is certainly contained in this text. For since the inspired writers inform us, that "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" is God, it must necessarily follow, either that there are three Gods, or that these three are

one.

5. The other Scripture which I quoted as teaching the doctrine of the Trinity, was the appointed form of baptism. Matthew xxviii. 19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Allowing the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be expressive of the only true God, the meaning of this passage is most obvious and natural;

but with a Socinian interpretation it will be difficult to make any sense of it; for according to this we are to be baptized into the name of God, the name of a mere man, and the name of the power of God, an interpretation which sufficiently refutes itself. In the " IIlustration," it is said, "This form of baptism seems to be intended to remind Christians of the different parts which God and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, acted in the scheme of man's redemption," page 36. What this Author means by the Holy Ghost as distinguished from God, I am at a loss to conceive. After having informed us, that by the Holy Ghost no distinct person is meant, but only the power and energy of God, or God himself considered as exerting his power, it is as unintelligible to talk of the different parts which God, and the Holy Ghost, acted in the scheme of man's redemption, as it would be to tell us of the different parts which God, and the power of God, acted in the work of creation.

*

Our Author thinks himself vindicated in supposing that this text does not imply an equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because the Apostle Paul says, 1 Corinthians

Triumph of Truth," page 12.

x. 2. that "the children of Israel were baptized unto Moses;" "but he certainly did not mean that Moses was their God." Here, I think it plain, the Apostle uses the term baptized merely in a figurative sense, or by way of allusion, and not in that proper manner in which it is used in the passage under consideration; for it was " in the cloud, and in the sea," that the children of Israel are said to have been "baptized unto Moses," and not by an ordinance expressive of any dedication of themselves to him; which shows that the being "baptized unto Moses," as the Apostle phrases it, was a very different thing from that solemn institution of Christ we are now considering. Besides, it is not said, that they were baptized in the name of Moses, but only unto Moses; whereas, we are to be baptized in the name of the Son, as well as of the Father.* The Apostle, who is certainly the best interpreter of his own words, shows us that these expressions are far from being synonymous; for he asks the Corinthians with an evident abhorrence of the thought, "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corin

* We read likewise of some who were baptized unto John's baptism, but it is never said that any were baptized in the name of John. See Acts xix. 3—5.

thians i. 15; and rejoices that he had baptized so few christian converts at Corinth, "lest any should say he had baptized in his own name;" verse 15. But surely, if this expression had only implied the being baptized into the profession of his doctrine, he would not have shown such an abhorrence of it; for in this sense they might have been baptized unto Paul, as well as unto Moses. Whereas, if the appointed form of this sacred ordinance intimates the solemn dedication of ourselves to him in whose name we are baptized, as I doubt not it does, the propriety of the Apostle's abhorrence is evident; for no creature must be joined with God as the object of that dedication which we make of ourselves to God in baptism.

6. I might urge many other Scriptures which contain the doctrine drawn from these I have already quoted; but at present, I shall add but one more, and this is the sixth chapter of Isaiah, as expounded by the inspired writers of the New Testament. The Prophet says, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; above it stood the Seraphim,-and one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts." Here the heavenly host are represented as giving