to be none of them that shall charge with heresy all those who say that the three Persons are Deus seipsum intelligens, Deus a seipso intellectus, et Deus a seipso amatus, (though I am not one,) nor yet those holy men whom I have cited, and many others, who expressly say that Potentia, Sapientta, et Amor, POWER, WISDOM, and LovE, are the Father, Son, and HOLY GHOST."

Thus, sir, we may see how the great and pious divines, with which God has blessed his church, have been divided in their real opinions of the meaning of a proposition which they all had adopted as an article of faith. One class out of six has agreed with you in sentiment, that by the three Persons are intended three distinct Agents; a second class uses the term Persons in an indefinite sense, without explanation; a third, by three Persons, understands three offices; the fourth supposes one proper Person, and His Wisdom and Power personified for the other two Persons; the fifth supposes the three Persons to be three principal attributes of God, Power, Wisdom, and Love; the other supposes the personality to mean no more than this, God understanding himself, God understood by himself, and God loving himself.

Of what use, sir, to Christianity, can that proposition be, which is thus variously understood by the best divines? While there is so great a variety of real opinion about the import of the article, their agreeing to adopt it as an article of faith can be no evidence of its correctness. But is not the disagreement as to the import of the word Person, in the proposition, some evidence that the word is improperly used? You cannot justly accuse me of differing more in real opinion from those who have adopted this arti

I

And I would

ele, than they differ from each other. suggest it for your serious consideration, whether your departure from the ancient orthodox faith is not infinitely greater than mine-yea, greater by two infinities? You suppose three self-existent, infinite Agents; suppose but one; and if Dr. Watts fairly stated the explication of the Trinity, which had "been long and universally received" as orthodox, the ancient orthodoxy implied but one infinite Agent. And with his statement agrees all but one of the several explanations which have been enumerated; the personality was evidently understood as figurative.

The evidence we have before us, that great and good men have been greatly divided on the subject of the personality of the Trinity, may serve to evince the propriety of the caution given by Mr. Baxter against indulging a censorious spirit one towards another. The more deep and mysterious the subject, the more occasion we have for self-diffidence, and the more room for the exercise of Christian candor towards those who may differ from us in opinion.

The experience I have had of my own fallibility may be considered as an admonition to me against indulging a self-confident spirit respecting the correctness of my present views. I have indeed been long searching and laboring to ascertain the truth, and to bring my views to harmonize with the meaning of the world of God. But I am yet far from any claim to infallibility. I can hardly expect that I shall be free from mistakes in explaining the numerous passages of Scripture which will naturally come under consideration. But this I know, that I have no interest to serve by perverting or misapplying the Scriptures.

It is, I hope, my aim, to act faithfully for Christ in attempting to explain his word; and with him I may safely leave the event.

I am not insensible that I expose to peril the little share of reputation which I have hitherto possessed, by taking ground so singular and unpopular. Nor am I at all indifferent as to the esteem and good will of my fathers and brethren with whom I have been in fellowship. My esteem for them is not at all abated by any change in my own sentiments; and it is my wish to give them no occasion of offence in my manner of writing. It will be my duty to expose what I esteem to be erroneous in their sentiments; but I hope to do it in the spirit of meekness, of candor, and of love. My dissenting from them in opinion is surely no reason why I should be offended with them; and I am not sensible that it is a reason why they should be offended with me. But should they view my dissent as ground of offence, I hope they will deal with me in a gospel temper, and on gospel principles, duly bearing in mind that bitter revilings and sound reasonings are things of a very different nature.*

Three principal propositions I shall attempt to illustrate and support, in the course of my Letters to you-viz.

I. That the self-existent God is only one Person. II. That Jesus Christ is God's own SON.

III. That by the Holy Ghost is intended the fulness of God, or the efficient, productive emanations of Divine fulness.

*Such was my

"hope" when I published the first edition. I must now say I wish it may be so in future. But alas! "what is man!"

In support of the first proposition, I shall, in my next Letter, distinctly consider what is meant by the word Person.

LETTER II.

Personality defined and illustrated.

REV. SIR,

IT has been supposed to be a very difficult thing to ascertain in what personality consists, or what constitutes personality. It may,owever, be found an easy thing to tell what is meant by the word Person, as it is used in Scripture, and in common discourse. I will exhibit a few instances of the use of the term in the Scriptures.

“Noah the eighth Person." "Joseph was a goodly Person." "No uncircumcised Person shall eat thereof." "Whosoever hath killed """ Goest to battle in thine own Person." 99

any

Person."

"A righteous Person." "A wicked Person." "Thy Person." "His Person." Such a manner of using the term is common in all writings with which I am acquainted. We apply the term Person to any man, or woman, to an angel, to Jesus Christ, and to God. But we do not apply it to any class of beings below the human race. The pronouns he or she, &c. we apply to the brutal creation; but it would be thought an impropriety of speech to apply the term Person to the most sagacious horse or dog. By careful observation, it will be found that we use the personal pronouns in reference to any beings which are supposed to possess animal life; but the word Person is properly applied only to intelligent

Beings. Inanimate objects, in figurative language, are often personified; but the very idea and mode of personification implies what is intended by the word Person, viz. an INTELLIGENT BEING.

What is meant by the word Person, is just as obvious to common people as what is meant by the moon. And we have no more occasion to inquire what constitutes personality, in order to tell what is meant by the word Person, than we have to ascertain the essence of the moon in order to tell what object is called by that name. And it is no more difficult to ascertain what constitutes personality, than to aseertain what constitutes intel gent existence.

It may be objected, that there is no part or property of a man but what is spoken of in the possessive case, as though it were something distinct from personality. We say, his hands, his feet, his head, his intellects, his heart, his body, his soul, as though personality were something distinct from any of these.

This is all granted; but in the same manner we use the word Person itself; we say his Person. And thus the term is used in the Bible, "the express image of his Person." But it does not hence follow, that personality consists in something distinct from Person.

As one person is one intelligent Being, so two or three Persons are two or three intelligent Beings. So obvious is this to the common sense of mankind, that it may be doubted whether any man can form any other idea of two persons than that of two intelligent Beings. If it be understood, that we are speaking of human Beings, and mention is made of two persons, it as elearly conveys the idea of two intelligent Beings, as if we should say two men. The same observation will apply to angels.