PREFACE.

SITUATED and employed as the writer of the following pages has been for a number of years, it may be thought that he now deviates from the path of prudence, in suffering this Tract to appear with his name. He therefore deems it proper to say, that he has long been grieved to see his fellow christians alienated from each other; that he has believed these alienations to arise in a great degree from contentions about the natural dignity of the Messiah, while far too little respect has been paid to the spirit he displayed in his example, and enjoined by his precepts; that when the argument stated in this Tract occurred to his mind, it impressed him with a belief that it was adapted to command the attention of all serious christians, as they must feel interested to have the moral character of their common Lord stand unimpeached by any hypothesis for explaining his testimony. He has reflected much on the subject since the argument was reduced to writing, and has not been able to discover any rational or scriptural ground on which it is liable to objection. He is, therefore, led to hope that by giving it to the public he may do something which will produce more caution, more candor, more forbearance and brotherly love among brethren of different sects; and that in consequence of this change of feeling, they will be better prepared to unite their exertions to abolish all antichristian customs. That the writer should indulge such a hope may appear

to many as the fruit of arrogance or delusion; yet were it not for this hope, he would sooner commit the manuscript to the flames than send it to the printer. From a review of the history of Christians, from the days of Constantine to this century, it would appear that the greater part of the clergy have thought it a very light thing for men to live in hatred and strife, or even to be employed in shedding each other's blood, compared with being in error respecting the natural dignity of the Son of God. How numerous have been the volumes published on this subject, and how innumerable the sermons which have been delivered, while there has been an almost total silence, as to any proper testimony against a custom which involves every species of crime, and has destroyed more than a thousand millions of our race. Instead of bearing proper testimony against this custom, a very great portion of the clergy have, for fourteen centuries, been directly or indirectly promoters of robbery and bloodshed! If the clergy of Christendom would now lay aside their party and sectarian animosities, and unite their exertions to cultivate and diffuse the gospel principles of love, forbearance, and peace, how glorious must be the effects! Soon the several countries might be filled with the blessed fruits of that wisdom which is from above.

The writer was once himself a Trinitarian, and he has not forgotten that he then conscientiously adopted the very mode of interpreting our Saviour's testimony to which he now objects. He therefore freely acquits others of insincerity or wrong motive, in adopting the principle which he now believes to be incorrect and dangerous. He has ever felt a respect for the denomination of Christians from which he found it his duty to dissent, and he wishes ever to retain towards them the feelings of a brother. If this Tract may be the means of abating the unkind and unconciliatory spirit which has long been too manifest among Christians, he will not have labored in vain; but if it should cause an increase of that spirit, it will be to him an occasion of deep regret.

THE

DOCTRINE OF PRONOUNS

APPLIED TO

CHRIST'S TESTIMONY OF HIMSELF.

No. 1. The Doctrine of Pronouns stated.

PRONOUNS are words used as substitutes for the names of persons or things, to avoid a too frequent repetition of the same word or sound.

A personal pronoun is a substitute for the name or title of a person; and it implies all that the name or title would imply, if used in the same place..

Example. Abraham was a good man, HE was the friend of God, and God loved HIм and made a covenant with HIM. In this sentence HE is used once and HIM twice as a substitute for the name Abraham. The meaning would be the same in the following formAbraham was a good man, Abraham was the friend of God, and God loved Abraham and made a covenant with Abraham. He and HIM therefore are pronouns. The word person is applied to any intelligent being-to God, to Christ, to any angel, or any man, whether in the body or out of the body. A human person in the present state is supposed to possess two distinct natures-a body and a

soul-the one matter, the other mind or spirit—the one mortal, the other immortal. These two natures, with all the members, senses, properties and powers of the body, and all the energies or faculties of the mind or soul, are so united and identified as to be but one person. Yet notwithstanding this union and identity, some things may be affirmed of one member or part of the person, which cannot be affirmed of another, nor of the man considered as a person.

A man may say, 'My hands can neither see nor hear nor taste nor smell; and my hair cannot feel.' Yet he may not say of himself as a person, 'I can neither see nor hear nor taste nor smell nor feel.' So a man may say My body cannot think nor will, nor has it any consciousness of right or wrong.' Yet he cannot say this of his mind or soul, nor of himself as a person. It would be falsehood for him to say, 'I cannot think nor will, nor have I any sense of right or wrong.'

The pronouns I, my, myself, include the whole person. Suppose then that John should say, 'I cannot think, I cannot choose, I have no sense of right or wrong:' Peter asks him what he means by such strange declarations. John replies, 'I spoke only of my body, my inferior nature. I did not say that my soul could not do these things.' Now what would be thought of John's veracity, or the propriety of his explanation?

In the common use of language, when a man has occasion to speak of any part of his person, and to affirm of that part what is not true of his whole person, he uses the neuter pronoun it. It is so even of his soul, which is the most important part of his person. There

is one exception and one only which occurs to my mind. Among Christians, who believe in the immortality of the soul as well as the mortality of the body, custom has authorized the use of an apparent contradiction. A man may say, 'I shall die, and I shall not die; I shall live but a little while, and I shall live for ever.' Here the personal pronoun I is used in both cases. But such a manner of speaking would be very improper, if the declarations were made to a person or an audience unacquainted with the doctrine of the soul's immortality.

No. 2. The Doctrine of Pronouns applied.

Let the preceding remarks be applied to the Trinitarian mode of explaining the testimony of Christ respecting his dependence on God. It is well known that the Trinitarian adopts this hypothesis, that Christ is God and man in one person. Here we have two distinct minds to one body, supposed to be united and identified in the one person, Jesus Christ. The possibility of such a union I shall neither deny nor discuss. I am ignorant on that subject. But admitting the hypothesis to be correct, it is very clear that the man is as nothing to the DEITY in this person. The Divinity must be all in all, as to the sufficiency, the operations, and the glory of Christ.

In this case, as in the one before stated, some things might be truly affirmed of one part of the person, which could not with propriety be said of the other. But when Christ or any other person says, I can, or I cannot do this or that, the pronoun I embraces all the powers of the person. Every one will admit that it would be improper