When I think on this, I cannot but apprehend that the question between us is of deep and radical interest, as it respects our eternal salvation. If the God whom I am bound to adore has not only revealed himself in the book of nature, but has clearly disclosed his glory in the gospel of Christ, and I mistake after all a revelation so clear,-or, induced by party feeling or erroneous philosophy, reject the testimony which he has given,-the mistake must be tremendous in its consequences— the rejection will justly incur the divine displeasure. With all this subject, however, fully before me, I do not hesitate-I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrained to cry out with the believing Apostle, "My Lord and my God!" And, when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal scenes, and wing its way to the world unknown, with my latest breath I desire to pray, as the expiring martyr did, "Lord Jesus, receivE MY SPIRIT!"

APPENDIX.

TWO PASSAGES ADDED BY PROFESSOR STUART,

In a late edition of his Letters, are introduced in this form, instead of being inserted in the body of the Work.

By comparing the preceding paragraph (page 23) with the same in the former editions of this work, the reader will see that some of it is modified, to avoid the ambiguity which seemed to be chargeable upon the former editions; or changed, to correct that which, if literally taken, would be erroneous. I had said, that “the word person was introduced into the creeds of ancient times, merely as a term which would express the disagreement of Christians in general with the reputed errors of Sabellius, and others of similar sentiments:" and although I certainly did not mean to say that such a use of it was universal, and without exception, as I well knew the phrase had been variously and loosely used by some of the fathers, yet I prefer to remove the ambiguity of the phrase by a limitation, which, so far as I have been able to examine, seems more accurately to correspond with the state of the case. My belief is,

that the leading and most influential fathers and councils of antiquity did use person as I have now stated.

As the text stood in former editions of this work, it would appear as if I meant to say, that the Nicene fathers, in their Symbol, had used the word person in the sense alleged. This, however, I did not mean to say, although it will appear on examination, perhaps, that I might have safely said it. I admit that my expression is of a dubious nature, or even that it will convey the sense which the Reviewer has given to it. I meant to say, that the fathers who belonged to the Nicene Council, the divines of that age, in their writings, used the word person to designate a distinction in the Godhead, in opposition to the opinions of Sabellius, and others of like sentiments with him.

The Reviewer, however, in the "Christian Disciple," in admonishing me of an error in respect to this, has perhaps himself fallen into one. He says that the Nicene Creed contains neither the word voorασis nor πроσшжоν; whereas, if he had read the Creed four or five lines beyond what I have quoted, he would have found it anathematizing those "who affirm that the Son is of a different hypostasis (vñoστaσews) from the Father." The sense of voorаois here, however, some may incline to think, is not that of person, but of substance simply. But Basil, and in like manner Bishop Bull, have contended, perhaps triumphantly, for the meaning of person.*

The only question of any importance at issue on the present topic is-Did the ancient fathers use the word person, in respect to the Godhead, to designate beings so distinct as to have only a specific unity, as the Re

* Bulli Op, p. 114, &c.

viewer, after Whitby and others, had asserted? or did they use it to designate a distinction in the Godhead, in opposition to sentiments like those of Sabellius, and with the acknowledgment of the numerical unity of the Godhead? The question, of course, is, Did the leading and most influential divines and councils maintain the one or the other of these views? If the former, then my allegation is incorrect; if the latter, then the substance of what I have hitherto said upon this subject has not been disproved.

It were easy to occupy a volume with the discussion of this subject; but my limits necessitate me to be very brief. I begin with an inquiry into the meaning of ὑποστασις.

The Antenicene fathers used this word, perhaps, commonly in the sense of ovoia, substance or essence. But some used it to signify person, or distinction in the Godhead. In consequence of the word being differently used by different writers, and in reference to diverse heresies, great disputes arose in the Church about it. At first, the orthodox fathers in general strongly objected to vrоoraσis as applied to designate a distinction in the Godhead, because they averred that it meant substance or essence; and to assert that there were three substances in the Godhead, they said, was antiscriptural. Thus Dionysius Romanus (about A.D.250) reprobates those "who separate the Divinity into three different hypostases." And again: "They preach as it were three Gods, dividing the sacred Unity into three hypostases, diverse and altogether separate from each other."

* Advers. Saball., as cited in Athanas. decret. Synod. Nic. p. 320.