proof of our religious opinions. For this reason it seems to be proper, that one, who has never critically examined the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity, should inquire, by what sort of evidence we may justly expect such a doctrine would be accompanied.

A doctrine may, a priori, or previously to a minute inquiry into its proofs, have a presumption either in its favor, or against it. A proposition which is at once perceived to be consonant to reason and the general tenor of the scriptures, will have a previous presumption in its favor, and may be believed to be a true doctrine of Christianity, with little hesitation. On the contrary, a proposition, which is apparently both irrational and unscriptural, will have a previous presumption against it, and requires a more scrupulous examination, and a fuller and more unequivocal evidence, before it can be embraced. There is a previous probability, for example, that the doctrine of a providence will be found in the New Testament, and a previous improbability, that the doctrine of transubstantiation will be found there.

In applying this general principle, we may safely say, that there is a strong presumption that the scriptures will not be found to contain any doctrine apparently inconsistent with the unity of God. There is no truth of greater clearness and higher authority, than that there is but one God. Both philosophy and revelation unite in confirming it. The systematical unity and harmony of design conspicuous throughout the universe, extending to the moral as well as the physical world, lead us to the conclusion that the cause of all is One. All the arguments, which demonstrate the existence of God, lead us to the same conclusion. They all result in this, that the nonexistence of an infinite, original, eternal mind, implies

an absurdity, a contradiction, an impossibility. But this reasoning can hold of only one such mind. For, since one such mind is adequate to every effect, if it could be maintained that more than one could exist, it might be said of each of them, separately, that its nonexistence is possible; and necessary existence, therefore, could be proved of neither of them. That therefore, which is the essence of every argument for the being of a God, would lose all its force, and atheism would be established on the ruins of all religion. But, indeed, the existence of one infinite mind excludes, by the very definition of infinity, the possibility that there should be more than one. If we attempt to form the supposition of a second infinite Being, we at once see, that it must in every particular be entirely coincident with the first; that is to say, as to all our ideas, it will necessarily be one and the same.

To this great truth, that there is but one God, both the Jewish and Christian revelations lend all the weight of their divine authority. Nothing can be more full and express than their testimony to this point. It was the great object of Judaism to preserve this truth amidst the polytheism of the ancient world. So sacred was it esteemed by the Jews, that it was a custom of theirs even till modern times, to repeat every morning and evening the passage of Deuteronomy; HEAR, O ISRAEL, JEHOVAH OUR GOD, JEHOVAH IS ONE. It is needless, however, to multiply proofs of this point, since it is one of those primary principles, which are universally admitted. All Christians, of every name, with whatever inconsistency it may sometimes be done, are compelled by the force. of scripture testimony to acknowledge, that there is one God, and that there is none other, but He. We are authorized by this universal concession to take this doc

trine as an axiom in all our reasonings on this subject, and to say, that whatever else may be false, this must be true.

As therefore the unity of God stands on the highest possible evidence, we are sure, that all other truths of religion will be really consistent with it, and of course there is a high probability that they will all be apparently consistent with it. We ought to view every proposition, which seems to contradict it, with doubt and suspicion ; for we are certain, that such a proposition must either be false, or else that we do not understand it. We are justified therefore in saying, that there is, a priori, a strong presumption against any proposition which apparently interferes with the doctrine of the unity of God. We do not say that this presumption is so strong that no evidence can remove it. But we must all admit, that till the compatibility of such a doctrine with this primary truth is rendered manifest, everything must be presumed against it, and nothing in its favor.

Now, there is scarcely any one who will deny that the doctrine of the trinity is apparently inconsistent with the unity of God. There is strong apparent discordance, we must all own, between the two propositions, that God is one, and that God is three. It is not till after many subtile and metaphysical distinctions are made, that any one will pretend that the harmony and consistency between them become visible. This is true of all the technical statements of this doctrine which has ever been given. They have undergone many changes since the doctrine of the trinity was finally completed, towards the close of the fourth century; but the same essential difficulty still adheres to them all. It must always be affirmed, under some form or other, by every believer in a trinity in unity,

that three, in some sense or other, are one, and one is three. It is true, that while any term of the proposition is declared to be mysterious, ineffable, and indefinable, it is impossible to demonstrate that it affirms a contradiction. We only say of it that it is apparently inconsistent with the doctrine of the unity of God in the natural and plain meaning of words. We say only, that if it mean anything like what such words would mean in any other proposition, it means something, between which, and the assertion that three Gods are one God, it is difficult to discern a difference.

The apparent inconsistency of the doctrine of the trinity with the unity of God becomes much stronger, when we examine the practical statements that are given of it. In speaking of its theory, its advocates secure themselves from attack by declining to say what they mean, and calling that a mystery which might otherwise seem to be a contradiction. "Unless we have some notion of the thing itself," one of them exultingly asks, "on what principle can we possibly make out its contrariety to reason." But the case is different in the practical statements of the doctrine of the trinity. When the proposition is entire, and the contradiction would appear manifest if words were allowed to bear any distinct meaning, its friends protest, that they use the word "person" only "for want of a better word," and declare, that we have no definite conception in what sense it is to be understood. But when they speak of the "persons" separately, their difficulties seem all to vanish. They ascribe severally to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, all that goes to make up our ideas of three perfectly distinct Gods. Each has a different name; different agencies or offices; distinct and independent power; and above all, each is a distinct

object of supreme worship and adoration. Of the Father, it may be said, that He is the infinite, eternal, self-existent God: of the Son it may be said, that He is the infinite, eternal, self-existent God: of the Holy Ghost it may be said, that He is the infinite, eternal, self-existent God. It is expressly declared, that these are not merely different names or different modes of operation of the same person. The pronouns I, thou, he, may be used as freely of each of these different "subsistences," as they may be of three different men. Now all we say of this doctrine, which applies the name and attributes of God to three distinct and independent agents, is, that to a common mind there is in it an apparent inconsistency, a seeming incompatibility with the doctrine that there is One God and none other but HE. The most zealous Trinitarian must admit, that if the same proposition were found in the Hindu Mythology, we should take it, till better informed, for something very much resembling a contradiction.

The use we make of these facts and reasonings is, not to say that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the scriptures, but simply that we should not expect it to be found there. There is a very high probability, a strong previous presumption, that it will not be found there. student of the Bible is bound to take it for granted, that it is not there, till it is proved that it undoubtedly is; he must conclude it to be false, till it is fully and clearly demonstrated to be true. Everything must be presumed against its evidence, and nothing in its favor. It will prove nothing for such a doctrine, that passages can be produced, which may possibly mean something like it, unless it can be unequivocally shown, that they cannot possibly mean anything else. We must all sit down to the study of the scriptures as Unitarians; and nothing