staggered, as he tells us he was, by the answers and evasions of the Hindoo idolaters. For what did they say to him? "Your Trinity as much violates the Unity of God as our Idolatry; your worshipping three persons in the Godhead is as inconsistent with the doctrine of one God, as our worshipping three hundred millions. Nor do our sacred books any more fail to teach the unity than yours, nor are they any more at variance with our practices. For it is as much a departure from the unity to worship three beings, as to worship thirty, or three millions. It is not the multiplication, but the bare diversity of objects of worship, that constitutes polytheism." And we are compelled to say, with no desire of giving provocation, but in calm sincerity, that we see not what the trinitarian can reply to this argument.

But although the popular doctrine of the trinity seems to us to be encumbered with insuperable difficulties, we would believe in it, or would believe in some kind of trinity, in the modal or Sabellian form of it-that is, one God acting in three characters, if we could find any evidence or trace of it in the scriptures. But it is in the scriptures, that we find every where, the most irresistible arguments for the unitarian views of this subject; and these arguments in the most unobjectionable form.

1. For, first, it is the simple doctrine of the Bible. God is one ;-one Being, one Mind, one Ruler ; one King of kings and Lord of lords, the blessed and only Potentate," ," "the only wise God," "the only true God,” one God the Father," "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." "To us there is but one God, the Father,and one Lord Jesus Christ." For although "there are gods

many, and lords many," yet," the Lord our God is one Lord." "There is none other God but He"-" there is no God with Him." Now, if we are not to receive this simply as it is said; if the unity of God may consist with such a strange and unaccountable multiplication of his being as the popular theology teaches; if his unity may be something so different from the natural and unavoidable sense of it, which this language conveys, how do we know but his justice and mercy differ as widely from the simple representations of scripture? And what security can we feel that all our knowledge of God's attributes and ways may not be just as far from the truth? What can save us from a scepticism that will be as chilling to devotion as the doctrine of the trinity is perplexing to it? These questions seem to us to have a great weight, and we desire that their importance may be apprehended. We read in the scriptures that God is good. But how do we know, admitting the trinitarian latitude of interpretation, how do we know that we understand what this means? If we do not interpret this language simply; if we deviate from the pervading, the constitutional sense which men have of goodness; if goodness in God may be as different from men's natural conceptions of it, as "three" is from "one," where, we ask, are the principles of piety? where are the exercises of devotion? We should tremble, indeed, if the same liberty were taken with the scriptural account of the moral perfections of God, as is taken with the far more abstruse and difficult subject of his metaphysical nature and mode of existence. Yet we have reason to think that the same liberty is taken. We ask if it is not becoming more and more common

among the most intelligent trinitarians to say, that we have no idea of goodness in God but as something which does us good, that we have no proper idea of it as a moral quality, that his goodness may, not only in degree, but in kind, very widely differ from the best conceptions we can form of it? At any rate, with regard to the general fact, we think that we need not ask. We are deeply and painfully impressed with the conviction, that the prevailing representations of God are far and wide from the simple, scriptural views of his benevolent and paternal character. On this subject we know it is difficult to speak without giving offence, and we would gladly avoid it; but we do solemnly believe, and we must assert our belief, and might do so, "even weeping," that in more than half the pulpits of this land, representations of God are constantly made ;—or, to be more explicit, that every time the doctrines of election and reprobation, of man's native depravity and impotence, and helpless exposure in consequence to eternal torments,-that every time these doctrines are preached, there is given a representation of God which every generous and honourable man in the community would shudder to have applied to himself!

The observations we have made tend to this point; it is dangerous to depart from the simple and rational sense of scripture. The doctrine, that we know nothing of God's goodness, that it is a somewhat," as undefinable as the trinity itself, (a legitimate consequence, let it be remembered, of trinitarian reasonings,) the doctrine that his goodness may differ as much from all our natural, affectionate, and reverent conceptions of it, as a trinity does from unity, strikes fatally to the very heart of devotion

If this is true, we may as well resort to the Athenian altar, for truly we worship an 66 UNKNOWN GOD!"

2. But, we say again, that unitarianism is the unembarrassed doctrine of the scriptures. We find no difficulty in believing that the Father is the Supreme and only God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But the moment we take up the trinitarian hypothesis, we are perplexed and troubled on every side.

We are not only perplexed by the general strain of the scriptures, but we are confounded by the very passages that are brought to support it. If we could find one text that plainly told us that God exists in three persons, that would relieve us. But the text in John, concerning "the three that bare record in heaven," the only one that has any pretension to be of this character, is now set aside by the consent of the learned of all parties as an interpolation; that is, a passage introduced by the fraud or negligence of transcribers, in some former age, when copies of the Bible were multiplied only by writing. It is remarkable, we may add in passing, that two other passages commonly brought to support the trinity, and two of the most important, are very generally, by the learned, admitted to have suffered injury from the same cause, viz; 1 Tim. iii, 16, "God was manifest," which should be read, "he who was manifest in the flesh was justified," &c. and Acts, xx, 28, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood," which should be read-"to feed the church of the Lord," &c. On these points, it is true, that common Christians cannot judge for themselves, but when many learned Trinitarians concur in giving up these passages, there is certainly a strong pre

"

sumption against them. And then, as to the few remaining proof texts, if we held the trinity, they would certainly embarrass more than they would satisfy us. For suppose that in the beginning of John's gospel, the "Word" spoken of, was Jesus Christ, and not as we believe, a mere divine attribute, the wisdom or power of God, which is afterwards said to have been "made flesh;" that is, manifested in the person of Jesus; suppose, which we do not admit, that in the first five verses of John, our Saviour is personally represented by the Logos, how strange and perplexing would the language be! In the beginning there was a being, and this being was with God, and this being was God. How is it possible that a being who was with God could be God himself? Refer now to the passage in the 1st of Hebrews, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," yet immediately after, it is said, "therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." If Jesus is God, yet here is another God, represented as superior to him, as his God, as anointing him, and placing him above his fellows or associates! Can a being inferior, subject, anointed by God, and having equals and associates, possibly be regarded as the Supreme God? Look, again, at the text, Rom. ix, 5; of whom, as concerning the flesh, that is, by lineage, "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." That is to say, Christ was of Jewish descent; and what follows? Is it credible that Paul meant to say, that a being who was of Jewish descent, was the supreme God? that a long line of Jewish genealogy was terminated by the Almighty Author and Sovereign of the Universe? Could he bring these ideas into