or in dignity, inferior in power, to God? As to the assertion that they are one, "because the essence of the Father is the root and fountain of the Son and Spirit," it would apply with equal truth and force to the unity of a father, son, and grandson. And if the being " gathered together under one head or chief" constitute this unity, then is there an equal unity between an army of soldiers and their general.

5th. I shall mention only one more explanation, that of Dr. Hooker.* He says, that "The substance of God, with this property, to be of none, doth make the person of the Father. The very self-same substance in number, with this property to be of the Father, maketh the person of the Son. The same substance, having added the property of proceeding from the other two, maketh the person of the Holy Ghost."

Does this explanation accord with your ideas? Here is a substance, which hath this property, to be of none; the very self-same substance hath this property,

* Author of Ecclesiastical Polity. 1600.

to be of the Father; the same substance also has the property of proceeding from the other two! Have you one single idea attached to this phraseology? If you have, most rejoiced should I be to have this explanation explained, for I confess I have none. Methinks that should I

hear a maniac giving me a similar explanation upon any subject connected with humanity, I should be perplexed whether I ought to pity or to laugh. Strange it is, that religion alone should have the privilege of depriving a man of his reason, whilst he is still accounted, not only by himself, but by others, most rational, most pious, most devout.

Such are the explanations which have been given, by the most learned advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity. Reason upon them as long as you will, they all reduce themselves to this alternative : either two of the persons are not, in the proper sense of the word, God, and ought not to be the objects of religious adoration, or they are three absolute, distinct, independent Gods. The latter case is Tritheism, the former is Unitarianism.

Of a Trinity in Unity, however it be explained, reason appears not to me to exhibit the shadow of a proof.

I shall now be told, it needs no explanation, it needs no proof from reason; reason is out of the question; it is a mystery. Upon this point you have no doubt frequently heard, as I have, the following argument adduced, with tones and gestures of the most perfect triumph

"You object to the belief of the Trinity, because it is a mystery, and yet you are compelled to believe many mysteries upon earth. You cannot tell me how the grass grows, how a flower proceeds from a seed, a bird from an egg, yet you believe all these." It is not a little singular, that this argument is addressed entirely to reason, in order to shew that we are not to use our reason upon the subject. In fact, you cannot combat a single point of our opinions, without having recourse to reason, which you so much decry. But in this instance the appeal to reason is completely sophistical. We do not know how the grass grows, and we do not believe how it grows. We believe the main

facts, which we do know and understand. We know that the grass, the flower, and the bird exist; we know that they arose from the secondary causes, the seed and the egg. Of this we have evidence, and this we believe. The mode in which, the how it is done, is mysterious, and for that very reason, we believe nothing about the mode, the how it is done.

Now to apply this to the doctrine in question; if, in inquiring how the thing took place, an explanation is given me which involves in itself a contradiction, I must disbelieve the explanation. If, for instance, I am told, that this seed becomes three eggs, and yet all the while continues a single seed, and thus the flower is produced, no power in the universe can make me believe this. But, Sirs, with this little how, which is so formidable a weapon in your hands, that you knock us down at a single stroke, we claim no acquaintance. We ask you not how, the precise mode in which, three are one, and one three, but what they are. You tell us, three persons in one God. We ask you, what you mean by three

persons, what by one God, and we can get no answer, no explanation. Are they three Gods? No. Are they three parts of a God? No. Are they three of the attributes of God? No. Are they three names only? No. They are three persons in one God. This you are to believe. These you are to worship, or everlasting perdition is your fate.

We ask then principally, what is it we are to believe? If we ask how it is, we only require, that you will give us no contradictions, else we shall disbelieve. If you can explain to our satisfaction what it is, but cannot explain the how, we will believe what it is, and we will only not believe how it is. But if you cannot explain so much as what it is we are to believe, we ask another question, Why are we to worship we know not what? Here, after all, Christians, here is the evil, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a mere speculative article of faith; it is attended with the most serious practical effects.

To revert to the assertion, that the Trinity appeals not to reason, and has no

H