this word is totally unintelligible to him, and presents no meaning to his mind. We tell another: IL Y A UN DIEU. We assure him that this sentence contains a fundamental article of faith, which it is highly important for him to believe, and which we ask him to receive as such. Now, unless he understands the French language, he will tell us, that this is not in his power; that he is willing to believe on our assurance, that these words contain some important truth, but that, as long as he does not know their meaning, he can not possibly say, whether he believes the proposition which they enounce, or not. But if we now tell him, that these words mean, there is a God, he will then give his cheerful and unhesitating assent to the truth which they announce.

We have thus endeavoured to establish, and if we mistake not, we have established, that if the doctrine of the Trinity be an incomprehensible mystery, which cannot be disproved, because it presents no idea to the mind on which reason or evidence could act, that for the very same reason, it becomes impossible to prove it to be true, or to believe in it as an article of faith. In fact, when thus presented, it is reduced to a mere empty name, having no meaning attached to it. But perhaps some one will object to us, that here facts are against us, and that there are numbers who profess to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, in the form last stated, that is, as something totally incomprehensible. That there are numbers who profess such a belief, we readily admit, but let us for a moment examine this point a little more closely, and the selfdelusion of such persons will be apparent to every one. Listen to

them, and it becomes evident at once, that the Trinity in which they believe, is not something totally incomprehensible, but a very plain dogma,

concerning which their ideas are perfectly clear. They can talk about it by the hour. They can teach it, they can explain it, they can bring forward evidence to establish it, they can write about it, preach about it, in one word, in their hands it loses all its incomprehensibility, and becomes a system so plain, and so perfectly similar to the first exposition which we have given of this dogma, that the humblest capacity can comprehend it: it is plain simple Tritheism. But if now the Unitarian, rejoiced that this doctrine is at length presented to him in a tangible shape, prepares himself to examine its truth, then the scene is at once changed. He is told that this is a profound, incomprehensible mystery, which presents no idea to the mind, and which, therefore, cannot be subjected to the scrutiny of reason, nor can evidence be applied to it to disprove it. It appears from all this, that this doctrine of the Trinity loses, in the hands of Trinitarians, all its mysteriousness, and becomes so plain, that the wayfaring man may run and read: but the moment it is touched by a Unitarian, it immediately changes its nature, and becomes totally inapprehensible to the human mind. Now does not all this most conclusively shew, that this pretended incomprehensibility was merely invented to shelter against the attacks of reason and revelation, a system of human invention, which cannot stand the test of either the one or the other of these? We beg here the Trinitarian reader tó reflect, whether, when he addresses his prayers to the three persons of the Trinity severally, he does not in his mind seperate them the one from the other, and whether at such moments his imagination does not represent them to him as three distinct Beings, as perfectly three, as Peter, and John and James?

There are some Trinitarians, who think that they

render their favorite dogma invulnerable by saying, that the fact, that a Trinity of Persons exists in the Godhead, is plainly revealed in the Scriptures, though the mode of their existence has not been revealed, and is therefore incomprehensible. But to convince ourselves, that those who hold this language do not form a class distinct from those of whom we have already treated, we have only to ask: what meaning do they attach to the words, a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead? If they attach to these words the idea of distinct personality, then they fall evidently in the first class, and are Tritheists. If they, by these words, understand a distinction merely modal or official, then they are Sabellians, and belong to the second class. And if they use these terms without affixing any precise idea to them, they then are persons who use words without meaning, and who reduce the Trinity to an empty, unmeaning name.

WE have thus endeavoured to define with precision, what it is that Unitarians, and what Trinitarians do believe, and we are now prepared to submit these two contending systems to the test of those revelations, which the Deity has been pleased to make to us. But before we do so, we would ask of our readers (and the question is asked in the perfect spirit of charity) whether the Unitarian is wrong, and must be condemned to endless torments, for refusing to worship the great Father of the Universe, under the unscriptural names of Trinity, or Triune God, names which to his mind present either the idea of a plurality of Gods, or do not present any idea at all? Whether the Unitarian is wrong, in preferring to worship the Great First Cause of all, under the name of Father, that name, by which our Lord and Saviour Jesus, revealed Him to us, and with which so many ideas of trust, and confidence and love are connected?

UNITARIAN ESSAYIST.

NO. II.

FEBRUARY, 1831.

MEADVILLE, PA. VOL. I.

ON THE UNITY OF GOD-NO. II.

In our first number, we have endeavoured to state with precision in what manner the doctrine of the Divine Unity is held by Unitarians, and how Trinitarians profess to believe in it; and we are now prepared to submit these two opposing systems, to the test of those Revelations which it has pleased the Deity to give to us with respect to himself.

In testing the respective claims of these conflicting systems, the first source to which we shall apply for light, is Natural Religion. By Natural Religion, we mean that revelation which the Deity has made of himself in his works. Now although our acquaintance with the works of nature is as yet very limited, enough is known to us to shew, that there is an intimate connexion and dependence, between the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms; that all are necessary to, and dependent on each other for their existence and support; and that all tend to one common end or purpose. Now from all this we are necessarily led to conclude, that this Universe was the work of one Being that one Almighty Mind conceived the stupendous plan, and that one Almighty Power called it into existence.

BUT in Natural Religion we meet with no traces of a Trinity, and hence too the sages of former days, a Zerdusht, an Anaxagoras, a Socrates, a Plato, and others, who from the contemplation of

the works of nature, have mounted up to a knowledge of Nature's God, have still believed in one God, a Being of simple unity. We must therefore conclude, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in Natural Religion. That religion is, however, the only revelation which it has pleased the Deity as yet to make of Himself to more than one half of mankind. Of the doctrine of the Trinity we are constantly told, that a belief in it is absolutely necessary to salvation, and if this be so, then it follows, that one half of the human race must necessarily and unavoidably perish everlastingly, and be consigned to the regions of never ending wo, and that for no fault of their's, but solely because it has pleased their heavenly Father to cast their lot in countries to which he has as yet, not deemed proper to extend the lights of a special revelation. Now although such a result would have nothing revolting for a mind steeled by a gloomy orthodoxy, and which has formed to itself a God altogether like unto itself: yet those who have learned to think more nobly of the Deity, on whose minds the impress of the divine image has not been thus obliterated, and above all, those who have gone to Jesus, and have inquired of him concerning the Father, will shrink back from such a conclusion with horror. Rather than attribute such injustice and partiality to the common Father of all, they will conclude, that either this dogma is not true, or if true, that a belief in it is not so essentially necessary, as it is represented to be.

But let us suppose for arguments sake, that Natural Religion is inadequate to communicate to us ideas sufficiently correct respecting the object of our religious homage, his person and attributes; yet we should certainly expect, that when it pleased the Deity to make a more special revelation of himself to mankind, such revelation would impart