John vi. 57: He declares that he received life and being from the Father;-"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father." See Dr. Clarke's paraphrase. Again, vii. 16: "My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me." viii 28, 29: "Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." In these, and those other declarations concerning himself, recorded by this his beloved disciple, ix. 4. x. 17, 18, 24 -30. xi. 40-42. xii. 49. xiii. 16, 20. xiv. 1, 16, 28, 31. xv. 8, 10. xvi. 5, 23. xvii. throughout, &c., our Lord formally professes his inferiority and dependence upon God; that he received his being and all his powers from him; and leads men by his precepts and example, to look up to God, the Father, as the sole author and source of all blessings to himself and to all, and the sole object of adoration from all.

Trinity, an unscriptural Name.

Whatever difficulties there may be in the Bible in other respects, one would imagine there could be no dispute concerning the object of divine worship, whether one or many: compounded of more persons than one, or uncompounded. The

most unlearned reader sees at once, (unless told he must not see it,) that the God that made him, and whom he is to adore, is one, without multiplicity or division, even as he knoweth himself to be one being, one person, and not many. Learned Christians have indeed coined a new language of their own, quite unknown to our Lord and his apostles, and have called God, Trinity, a Trinity

i

Unity that is to be worshiped; which is obviously departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and is at best making a plain thing obscure. As to those persons however, who reckoned these to be proper expressions of what appeared to them the scripture doctrine concerning the Deity, there could be nothing blameable in their thus wording and explaining it for themselves. They had a right to do it, which no one should or ought to interfere with or hinder. But the unhappiness hath been, that some men have not been contented with making and adopting this phraseology concerning the Deity for themselves, but have also obtruded it upon others, by methods not always the most justifiable, as the only right and allowable way of thinking and speaking concerning God. And this obscure language, consecrated at first by a few leading names, and grown hoary, as it were, through length of years, takes place of, and with many is revered above, that of holy scripture itself: and the doctrine thus worded is called a

tremendous doctrine, a sacred mystery; and for many ages, Christians have been forbidden to search into it, or call it in question, under various pains and penalties, even unto death; and at this very day, to disapprove this unscriptural language and the doctrine conveyed by it, shall by some be looked upon as denying the truth of divine revelation, as little short of atheism itself.*

*"The complainants, if we may judge from some publications previous to this attempt, are a motley mixture of Infidels of various denominations, such as Deists, Arians, Socinians and Pelagians; the grand point they want to be rid of, is the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, and its consequences, such as the Godhead of Christ, and the personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost; if these could be struck out of the Liturgy and Articles, they would be content. Dr. Clarke's Being, Mahomet's Alla-any but the true God will serve their turn.". -Scriptural Comment on the xxxix. ArticlesPreface, pp. ix. x. by M. Madan, A. B. &c. 1772.

This is the principal, if not the only characteristical note, whereby to distinguish a Christian from another man; yea from a Turk; for this is the chief thing that the Turks, both in their Alcoran, and other writings, upbraid Christians for, even because they believe a Trinity of persons in the divine nature. For which cause they frequently say, they are people that believe God hath companions : so that take away this article of our Christian faith, and what depends upon it, and there would be but little difference betwixt a Christian and a Turk."- -Bishop Beveridge, Private Thoughts, Part ii. p. 53.

One is sorry to see this pious bishop laying such unwarrantable stress on his own private opinions in this and other points, and dealing out such uncharitable censures in a book

The Rise and Date of the Name Trinity.

The word Trinity was not known or used among Christians for near two hundred years after Christ, when it was first adopted by Theophilus, a Gentile convert, bishop of Antioch: but in no great conformity to what it is made to signify at present. It is acknowledged to be entirely of pure heathen extraction, borrowed from Plato, and the Platonic philosophy: and this being its true origin, it should seem, that a proper zeal for God's word, and regard for Christ and his inspired apostles, should make us relax a little of our passion and vehemence against those who scruple to use a language not sanctified by their authority, in speaking of and addressing the great God.

Luther and Calvin, (as a learned author informs us,) in some moments were little disposed to favour this unscriptural dialect. "The word Trinity sounds oddly," saith the former, "and is an human invention. It were better to call Almighty God, God, than Trinity." And Calvin says, " I like not this prayer, O holy, blessed and glorious Trinity: it savours of barbarism.-The word

of practical piety; unfit place for it surely of all others! Much is to be allowed undoubtedly to the warmth of his natural temper. But then he should be read with caution, lest we receive harm from him instead of benefit, and in settling our orthodoxy lose our charity.

* Ben Mordecai, Letter i. p. 75.

Trinity is barbarous, insipid, profane: a human invention: grounded on no testimony of God's word; the Popish God, unknown to the prophets and apostles."* We bear with this freedom of speech in these eminent reformers, because they were well-known and warm contenders for what is called the doctrine of the Trinity, though they expressed such utter distaste and dislike of the word itself. It would be but fair and equitable to give a patient hearing to those, who do not take upon them to condemn this obnoxious language in so rude a way, but who think there is cause and ground from holy scripture to discard not only the name but the doctrine itself; who assert the Divine Unity in the strictest and most absolute sense; that God is One, and his name One, the God that made the world, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that he alone is the object of his creatures' religious regards and worship, by the testimony of Jesus himself.

The bulk of Christians have suffered themselves to be strangely deluded into a notion, that there is a merit in believing dark, inexplicable doctrines,† and that it is owing to want of a

* "Imo Calvinus non dubitavit dicere, cette prière reçue communement, sainte Trinité, un seul Dieu, aye pitié de nous, ne me plait point, et sent du tout sa barbarie;' in Epist. ad Polon. secund. gallicam epistolarum ejus editiouem.". Curcellæi Op. p. 833.

+ I beg leave to give a sample at length of one of these dark doctrines, to shew what hay and stubble,[(1 Cor. iii. 12,)