"personality is applied to the Holy Spirit, was never disputed.* "When, therefore, he calls the second of the three distinct "subsistences a person, he means, that that subsistence is a "distinct mind, or intelligent being." (Pages 127, 128.) 66 Now either Mr. Yates was nodding when he penned this, or he felt himself sadly pinched for proof, and calculated largely on the stupidity of his readers. The most effectual way to show this, will be to give at length the paragraph from which his garbled quotation is taken. "In the more "direct discussion of this subject, I shall begin with the evi"dence of personality.-To some of you this may, perhaps, 66 appear preposterous. But by the proof of personality, on "the present occasion, is meant, it should be observed, the proof that the Holy Spirit is a person at all. On our for"mer subject, there was no necessity for our leading a proof "of this nature; the personality of Jesus Christ, in this sense "of the term, having never been disputed. The only ques❝tion on that subject was, not whether he was a person, but "whether he was a person in the Godhead. But in the ❝ment now before us, the case is otherwise. The Holy Spi❝rit is not considered, at least in general, by the opponents ❝ of his Divinity, as a creature, possessing distinct personal ex❝istence; but as a quality, a power, an influence. In this case, "therefore, the proof of personality is an important and es"sential step towards the proof of his Divinity. And, indeed, "in many instances, the evidence of the former will be found "to involve in it a proof of the latter." (Discourses, pages 280, 281,) argu The meaning of this does not seem to be very obscure. The personality of Jesus Christ, apart from his Divinity, * The Italics are Mr. Yates's. The words alluded to by Mr. Yates. Unitarians never have questioned. He has never been considered, like the Holy Spirit, as a mere influence, or energy, or attribute. No proof of his personality therefore, was necessary, prior to the demonstration of his Divinity.— When I say, that "by the proof of personality on the pre"sent occasion is meant the proof that the Holy Spirit is a "person at all;" and then subjoin, that the personality of Jesus Christ in this sense of the term has never been disputed; and add still further, that "the only question on that "subject (the personality of Christ,) was, not whether he "was a person, but whether he was a person in the God"head;"—if my meaning is not plain, I am at a loss to make it plainer. It obviously is, that the mere personality of Jesus Christ, the simple question whether he be a person at all, apart altogether from the doctrine of his Divinity, has never been disputed?-Well: and what does my interpreter make me say? He first of all labours to show, that the term personality, as applied by me to the Holy Spirit, means nothing less than his being one of three distinct, infinite, intelligent minds. And then, to show that I consider Jesus Christ, "the second of the three subsistences," in the same light, he represents me as saying, that his personality, in the sense in which the term personality is applied to the Holy Spirit, was NEVER DISPUTED." That is, when I speak of Unitarians as never having disputed the personality of Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates makes me say, that they never have disputed his personality, as one of the three distinct subsistences in the Godhead!-nay more; that they never have disputed his being a person in the Godhead, even according to the explanation of Dr. Sherlock himself, as a distinct, infinite, intelligent Mind, or Being !—for this is the sense, in which, he affirms, the term person is applied by me to the Holy Spirit.-Such is the "generalship" by which Mt. Yates endeavours to identify my sentiments with those of Dr. Sherlock. It may not be improper for me, once for all, to state in this place, a little more fully, what it is which the Scriptures require us to believe respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. And I shall avail myself of the language of two other writers, who have expressed themselves with that modest discretion, which is so becoming in creatures on all such subjects; but which is galling to the adversaries of the doctrine, because it does not furnish them with grounds sufficiently gross and palpable, to enable them to shock and horrify the minds of their readers, by burlesque, and ridicule, and bold unqualified asseverations of the nonsense and absurdity of Trinitarianism : "The word Trinity," says Dean Swift, "is indeed not "in Scripture; but was a term of art, invented in the earlier "times, to express the doctrine by a single word, for the "sake of brevity and convenience. The doctrine, then, as "delivered in Holy Scripture, though not exactly in the "same words, is very short, and amounts only to this:"that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each of "them God, and yet there is but one God. For, as to "the word person, when we say there are three persons, "and as to those other explanations in the Athanasian Creed, "this day read to you, (whether composed by Athanasius "or not) they were taken up three hundred years after "Christ, to expound this doctrine; and I will tell you on ❝ what occasion-" &c.-" God commands us to believe there " is a union and there is a distinction: but what that union or “what that distinction is, all mankind are equally ignorant; ❝ and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, with❝out some new revelation.-Therefore I shall again repeat the "doctrine of the Trinity, as it is positively affirmed in Scrip"ture:-that God is there expressed in three different names, 66 as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each of these is "God, and that there is but one God. But this union and dis"tinction are a mystery utterly unknown to mankind. This "is enough for any good Christian to believe, on this great "article, without ever inquiring any farther. And this can "be contrary to no man's reason, although the knowledge "of it is hid from him."-"From what hath been said, "it is manifest that God did never command us to believe, "nor his servants to preach, any doctrine which is contrary ❝to the reason he hath been pleased to endue us with; but "for his own wise ends hath thought fit to conceal from us "the nature of the thing he commands, thereby to try our "faith and obedience, and increase our dependence on "him. It is highly probable, that if God should please ❝to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some "other mysteries in our holy religion, we should not be able "to understand them, unless he should at the same time think "fit to bestow on us some new powers or faculties of the mind, "which we want at present, and which are reserved till the ❝ resurrection to life eternal. For now,' as the Apostle says, ""we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.”— "Reason itself is true and just; but the reason of every par❝ticular man is weak and wavering, perpetually swayed or "turned by his interests, his passions, or his vices.” *. "The doctrine of what is called the Trinity," says the late Rev. Mr. Venn, Rector of Clapham, " concisely stated, is "this: that although there is only one God, this God is "revealed to man as subsisting under three distinct names * Swift's Sermon on the Trinity; Works, Vol. II. old edition. "or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who "are yet, in a sense to us mysterious and inscrutable, but "one God.". "It is true that, on this subject, some persons 66 may have spoken rashly and unwarrantably, in representing "the three persons to be so absolutely distinct, as to be, in all "respects, three different Beings," &c.-" The precise nature "of the distinction here implied is not described in Scripture, "nor perhaps is it conceivable by fallen man. It has, indeed, "been agreed to express this distinction by the term “person :' " and this term is perhaps as eligible as any other, whilst it is "understood not to convey any real idea of the nature of this "distinction, but merely to affirm that it exists, and is not con"fined to a distinction of mere titles or attributes."—" It may "be asked, What, then, do we in fact believe as to the Divine "nature? I answer, we believe that one and the same God "is three, in a sense which we are able neither to express "nor comprehend."-" Such, indeed, is the obscurity in “which the Divine nature is necessarily involved, that it "matters little what terms are employed by us to describe it. "Change the terms; yet the obscurity remains. They "would either have no meaning "understood in precisely the same "ed for the same purpose before. affixed to them, or be sense with those employHad the very terms emdoctrine of the Trinity "ployed by us to express the "been employed in Scripture, the revelation of the doctrine "itself would not have been more distinct or intelligible. 66 Language could not have made that distinct, which we "have not the faculties to comprehend."-" You are re66 quired to believe, that these three terms, the Father, the "Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all applied in Scripture to "the one Supreme God; that all the actions, offices, attri"butes, which are ascribed to any of these names, are plain K |