against it; the against it; and

it; the argument from plain Scripture is argument from ecclesiastical history is even from those who believe it, as well as from those who deny it, we derive argument against it; and to this we may add, that the doctrine on which it relies for support, and without which it could not be defended, is fallacious and untrue. Let us briefly illustrate what we have now laid down.

1. The argument from common sense is against it. The following extract from the Athanasian creed may be taken as a statement of the doctrine: "The Father is Almighty; the Son, Almighty; and the Holy Ghost, Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So, likewise, the Father is Lord; the Son, Lord; and the Holy Ghost, Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord." Now, we say that common sense gives a verdict against every sentence of this statement. Here are three persons, each of whom is plainly affirmed to be God, and yet in the same breath we are told they are not three Gods, but one God. Common sense at once pronounces, that if the former part be true, the latter cannot be; and if the latter be true, the former cannot.

Or take the statement and explanation of the Westminster Confession: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the

Son." Here again common sense gives a verdict against the assertion that a son can be eternal as his own father, or that the third person of the Trinity can be precisely coeval with those other persons from whom he is said to have proceeded.

2. The argument from sound reason is against it. Some may think it unnecessary to make this a matter of distinct statement; inasmuch as sound reason, it is said, always confirms the dictates of common sense. But, under this head, we only intend to show, somewhat more minutely, that the verdict of common sense is correct. The assertion that there are three persons, each of whom is Supreme God, and yet that there is only one Supreme God, at once confounds numbers and contradicts first principles, and therefore it cannot be true. If the term "person" have any intelligible meaning, it implies, at least, a distinct individual existence. Now to affirm that there are two or three such distinct individual existences, each and every one of whom is omnipotent, etc., is to assert a moral impossibility. And with respect to the coeternity of the Son with the Father, this part of the theory is likewise at variance with reason and truth. Father and Son are correlative terms, necessarily involving the ideas of priority and posteriority in point of time. "The phrase, Eternal Son," says Dr. Adam Clarke (himself a Trinitarian), "is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation." An argument of the same nature lies against the "eternal procession" of the Holy Ghost, or third person of the Trinity.

We know it is said, however, that the whole is a mystery; and that a doctrine is not to be rejected merely because it is incomprehensible. In the latter opinion we fully agree. Many things are incomprehensible to us, which are unquestionably true. The union of the soul with the body is an incomprehensible matter to us, yet we should never think of denying it. The fact of such a union is unquestionable. To explain it is above our reason, but there is nothing in the statement of it to contradict our reason. But it is very different, as we have seen, in the statement of the Trinity. There is a line of distinction to be drawn between that which is above reason and that which is contrary to it. If we lose sight of this line, there can be no end to the absurdities which may be presented in the name of religion. Under the much abused plea of mystery, the Roman Catholic finds what he conceives a sufficient shelter for the doctrine of Transubstantiation. It should always be observed that the Unitarians do not reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it is incomprehensible, but because it is defective in rational and scriptural proof.

3. The argument from plain Scripture is against it. Every reader of the Bible knows that the general tenor of that sacred book is in harmony with the declaration of Moses when he said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." We read in the Bible that there is one God. We read, likewise, that "God is one." But it is nowhere stated that "God is three." And until such a statement is produced we do not see (and we say it with all respect) how Trinitarianism can be said to stand upon the same distinct and definite scriptural ground as Unita

rianism. Roman Catholic controversialists insist that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from the Scriptures alone. To the same effect speak the Tractarians of the Anglican Church.† These parties hold the Trinity,

* In a discussion held at Castlebar, Ireland, in January, 1837, between the Rev. Mr. Hughes, a Roman Catholic priest, and the Rev. Mr. Stoney, Protestant rector, the former gentleman thus expressed himself: I believe the doctrine of the Trinity on the authority of the Church; and though he (Mr. Stoney) rejects Church authority, he would be glad to base his creed upon a splice of it. My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church; — no other authority is sufficient."

†The following extract from the writings of the "Oxford Doctors" is worthy of attention in this connection:

"What shall we say when we consider that a case of doctrine necessary doctrine, the very highest and most sacred may be produced, where the argument lies as little on the surface of Scripture, where the proof, though most conclusive, is as indirect and circuitous, as that for Episcopacy, namely, the doctrine of the Trinity? Where is this solemn and comfortable mystery formally stated in Scripture, as we find it in the Creeds? Why is it not? Let a man consider whether all the objections which he urges against the Scripture argument for Episcopacy may not be turned against his own belief in the Trinity. It is a happy thing for themselves that men are inconsistent; yet it is miserable to advocate and establish a principle which, not in his own case indeed, but in the case of others who learn it, leads to Socinianism [meaning Unitarianism]. A person who denies the Apostolical succession of the ministry, because it is not clearly taught in the Scripture, ought, I conceive, if consistent, to deny the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, which is nowhere literally stated in Scripture. . . . If the Lord's Supper is never distinctly called a sacrifice, or Christian ministers are never called priests, still, let me ask, is the Holy Ghost ever expressly called God in Scripture? Nowhere. We infer it from what is said; we compare parallel passages."― Tracts for the Times, Vol. I. No. 45; Vol. V. No. 85, pp. 4, 11.

but they maintain that the authoritative tradition, or teaching of the Church, is necessary, as well as the Scriptures, to establish it. The Unitarians likewise maintain that it is not sustained by the Bible, and, as they discard the authority of tradition, they discard the doctrine of the Trinity likewise. Thus it appears that although the doctrine of a tri-personal God is the faith of the great multitude of Christian believers, yet it is at the same time maintained, by the large majority, that that doctrine cannot be legitimately drawn from the Scriptures alone. This consideration should surely have some weight with the careful inquirer.

The Trinitarian controversialist does not pretend to say that the doctrine in question is expressly revealed in the Bible. The most that is claimed for it is, that it is a doctrine fairly deducible therefrom by a process of inferential reasoning. But wherever human reason is employed, the element of fallibility is introduced, and its deductions should not be arrayed against the utterance of the infallible Word, when that utterance is plainly, distinctly, and incontrovertibly spoken. The Bible teaches that there is "one God." All who admit the teaching of

* A Trinitarian writer, the Rev. J. Carlile, in his work called Jesus Christ the Great God our Saviour, thus states the matter: "The doctrine of the Trinity is rather a doctrine of inference, and of indirect intimation, deduced from what is revealed respecting the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and intimated in the notices of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, in the form of baptism and in some of the Apostolic benedictions, than a doctrine directly and explicitly declared. We have now come to the limit of explicit revclation, and are entering upon the region of reasoning and inference." VOL. XIX. — -NO. CCXXIX.

2