with him in promoting the order of the universe, while we gain that preparation, which is necessary for the final and eternal enjoyment of his favour.

B.

Tenth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller. On the Morat Tendency of a Belief in the Trinity.

SIR,

Although I have finished the examination of your Reply, I do not think proper to dismiss the subject, till I have considered two or three other points intimately connected with it, and which, in substance, if not in form, you have embraced. You started, as we have seen, with a loud and unqualified charge against the morals of unitarians. When you were met on this ground, and required to make your charge good, you dexterously changed your position without apology or explanation, and renewed your attack not on the character, but the opinions of the persons, against whom your assault had been directed. This, to be sure, was a virtual acknowledgement of the haste, and indiscretion, and want of wisdom, with which your first asseverations were hazarded, but it was hardly that open avowal of mistake, and of unconscious injury, which, in a case of so much importance, candour and the christian temper would seem to demand.

After releasing yourself with happy facility from this topic, which was the only one at first claiming discussion, the single object of your Reply was to draw as revolting a picture as possible of the immoral and irreligious tendency of the unitarian principles. When

you found facts too stubborn to be moulded into such shapes as you desired, your sagacity was not long in discovering the convenience of going into the region of faith and opinion, where the road is more broad, and the license less restricted. To this point I have endeavoured to confine myself, as far as the subjects brought under discussion would admit. The tendency of the calvinistic doctrines, which were particularly specified in your Reply, has been examined, and compared with the tendency of the unitarian sentiments comprising similar objects. The same course I propose to pursue in regard to the Trinity, and the Atonement. To the former of these the present letter shall be devoted.

As the doctrine of the trinity embraces no moral precepts, nor immediate rules of action, its good or evil tendency must depend on the power it exerts in giving a tone and bias to the mind favourable or unfavourable to just notions of the Deity, to the reception of moral truth, a reverence for the known laws of God, a respect for the voice of conscience, and a habitual frame of piety and benevolence. It has a very remote bearing, if any at all, on the clearness and obligation of the preceptive and practical part of religion. Trinitarians and unitarians are equally convinced of the divine origin, and absolute truth of every thing which the Saviour taught; they equally consider all his ordinances and precepts as imposing commands, which must be implicitly obeyed. Hence it is, that neither a belief, nor disbelief of the doctrine has any tendency to diminish or strengthen the authority of the christian religion, as it relates to the necessity of obedience, repentance, reformation, and a holy life.

We are not hence to infer, that the trinity is an error of no consequence. All error is injurious. Of truth we can say with certainty, that it will always lead to good ends; error, on the contrary, however innocent in itself, must be pernicious in its results. It cannot be doubted, that many christians have been good and pious with erroneous creeds, but it is a case equally indubitable, that they would have been better with true ones. The criminality, and the evil of error are very different things; a man is compelled to believe according to his convictions; he may be deceived; many evils may follow from this deception, but no crime can be attached, unless there has been a culpable indolence, or a perverted will, or some unhallowed purpose in forming opinions. A belief in the trinity involves no crime; its iniquity consists in its evil consequences; it obscures the perfections of the Deity, obstructs the current of devotional feeling, perplexes the humble inquirer after truth, and thus essentially impairs the means and motives of a rational worship, practical piety, and vital godliness.

In attempting to trace out the tendency of the trinity, it is important to attain some definite notions of the doctrine itself; and here we shall be forced to encounter much difficulty at the very outset. It would be no easy task to enumerate the parties into which the advocates for this doctrine have been divided, from the time of its origin to the present day, and the opposing schemes which they have invented to bring it within the compass of the human faculties. They have not yet approached so near to a similarity of views as to agree in a definition. One of the heaviest censures affected to be passed by the orthodox on unitarians, is, that they

do not agree in explaining their own opinions. Before this point is insisted on any further, we should be glad if trinitarians themselves would unite in some common explanation of the doctrine, which they profess to think the most important in religion; or at least show some good reason, why we are to reverence, as a fundamental article of faith, a doctrine, which cannot be defined in scripture language, and which is confessed to be unintelligible, and inexplicable. The truth is, that no plan has been devised, which was not incumbered with so many insurmountable' difficulties, that few minds could be induced to receive it in that shape. Hence plans have been multiplied, the powers of invention and combination have been put in requisition, till the theories of the trinity have become as numerous as the writers by whom it has been attempted to be explained.*

* The following extract from Sparks' Letters on the Protestant Episcopal Church, [p. 149] will illustrate the above remarks, and exhibit the views of some of the English writers, concerning the trinity.

"First, the Athanasians, among whom were Dr. Waterland, Dr. Taylor, and probably Archbishop Secker, from the encomium he passes on the Athanasian Creed, [Works, vol. vi. p. 126] maintain, that the trinity consists of three distinct, independent, and equal persons, constituting one and the same God; or, in other words, that "the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, the Holy Ghost is Almighty; and yet, there are not three Almighties, but one Al. mighty.'

"Secondly, according to Mr. How's theory, there are three distinct, intelligent hypostases, each having a distinct intelligent nature, united in some inexplicable manner, so as to make one God, in somewhat the same way as the corporal, sensitive, and intellectual faculties are united to form one man.

"Thirdly, Dr. Wallis was an advocate for the Sabellian hypothesis, and held, that the three persons in the trinity were only three modes or relations, which the Deity bears to his creatures. This, also, was probably the opinion of Archbishop Tillotson.

"Fourthly, Bishop Pearson supposed the Father to be an underived

Amidst this chaos of incertitude and variety, a few landmarks may be discerned, which seem to have served as common guides; and the numerous schemes to which the prolific invention of theologians has given birth, may all be arranged, perhaps, without much violence, under two general ones, the Sabellian, and the Tripersonal. The former teaches a trinity of modes in the Deity, the latter a trinity of beings. The modalists have succeeded in establishing a trinity in name, and in destroying it in reality, for there is no more reason for

essence, and the Son to have received every thing by communication from God the Father. There can be but one person,' says he, ‘originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons, so subsisting, would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods.' The son possessed the whole divine nature by communication, not by participation, and in such a way, that he was as really God, as the Father. See Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Oxford, 1792, vol. 1. p. 157, 217. Bishop Bull and Dr. Owen adopted a similar theory.

"Fifthly, in the system of Dr Thomas Burnet, the Father is a self-existing Being, the Son and Spirit are dependent; but so united, that divine perfections and worship may be ascribed to each.

"Sixthly, Mr. Baxter defines the three divine persons to be wisdom, power, and love; and illustrates his meaning by the vital power, intellect, and will, in the soul of man, and by motion, light, and heat in the sun. For this explanation he was indebted to the sharpened

wits of the schoolmen.

"Seventhly, Bishop Burgess supposes the three persons of the Deity to make one God, but does not allow, that these persons are three beings He makes out his position by the following syllogism. "The Scriptures declare, that there is only one God; the same Seriptures declare, that there are three omnipresent persons; but there cannot be two omnipresent beings; therefore the three omnipresent persons can be only one God.' According to this hypothesis, the trinity is made up of three nonentities.

"Eighthly, Bishop Gastrell says, "The three names of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must denote a three-fold difference, or distinction, belonging to God, but such as is consistent with the unity and simplicity of the divine nature; for each of these includes