now, it cannot be adventitious, but essential; it always existed in the same intensity and degree, and throughout eternity it will continue the same. Before the universe was created, it dwelt in him; had no intelligent creature even yet existed, it would have dwelt within him; and if the whole intelligent universe were to be destroyed, it would remain with him through all eternity.

In closing our observations on the Divine attributes, it must not be supposed that we have enumerated all Jehovah's perfections, or that any stretch of human thought can conceive adequately of his nature; but it is a pleasing and elevating thought, that our minds are formed to receive eternally brightening and enlarging perceptions of Jehovah's character. As Robert Hall has observed, "The idea of the Supreme Being has this peculiar property-that, as it admits of no substitute, so, from the first moment it is formed, it is capable of continual growth and enlargement. God himself is immutable; but our conception of his character is continually receiving fresh accessions, is continually growing more extended and refulgent, by having transferred to it new elements of beauty and goodness -by attracting to itself, as a centre, whatever bears the impress of dignity, order, or happiness. It borrows splendour from all that is fair, subordinates to itself all that is great, and sits enthroned on the riches of the universe." Whatever excellencies there may be in existence, they must essentially dwell in God's nature. Absolute perfection includes all possible perfection-in all variety, and in unlimited degree. Such a Being must be infinitely, independently, and eternally happy. All the elements of greatness, goodness, and happiness essentially belong to him, to whom be all honour, and glory, and blessing, Amen.

evermore.

"

* R. Hall's "Modern Infidelity."

BOOK III.

THE HOLY TRINITY.

CHAPTER I.

RATIONAL ARGUMENT ON THE TRINITY.

HAVING examined the evidence which establishes the great fundamental truth of God's existence, and demonstrates the essential attributes and perfections of his nature, it is now our duty to inquire-Is God an absolute unity? or does the Divine nature involve a plurality of persons? This inquiry is essential to the completion of our argument. Whatever may be the truth on this subject, we ought to know it if that knowledge can be attained; because it is an element of knowledge essential to our forming right conceptions of our Creator, and gravely affecting our duty towards him. For the same reasons our inquiries into this profound subject ought to be conducted in a devout and reverential spirit, and with equal patience and candour.

If the Bible be a revelation from God, it will doubtless unfold to us his nature as God, and may be expected to speak with distinctness and decision on the subject of our present inquiry. It does so. In passages too numerous to adduce, we read of a threefold distinction in the Godhead, under the designation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We never read of more than three; but these three are constantly named and referred to their designations and operations being blended everywhere with Biblical narrative, doctrine, and worship. All the attributes of distinct personality are ascribed to each, with a plainness and a frequency that place

their actual being beyond doubt; and yet this doctrine of a threefold personality is combined with assertions, equally plain and frequently repeated, that Jehovah is essentially One. Regarding both these averments of revelation as equally authoritative, the conclusion is inevitable, that both are equally true; and that there is a sense in which both truths harmonize. Christians, in general, have agreed that the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Godhead is, that there is a Trinity of Persons with a Unity of Essence. If it be demanded, What do you mean by a Trinity of Persons, and Oneness of Essence? we mean- -distinct consciousness, combined with the united possession of the same nature and attributes. We do not, indeed, profess that this is a full or adequate enunciation' of the doctrine, but it doubtless expresses what is sufficient for our present purpose, namely-The existence of unity compatible with plurality, and plurality consistent with unity. We believe it may be shown that this doctrine is in harmony with reason, and is confirmed by the sacred Scriptures.

SECTION 1.-THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS IN HARMONY WITH REASON.

WE do not suppose the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. to have been discoverable by mere human reason, but the doctrine having been revealed to us by God himself, we believe it to be in harmony with right reason. For every doctrine that is true itself must be in harmony with all other truths; and, so far as those truths can be clearly and adequately known, their harmony must be perceived by the human mind. This is all that we claim in the present argument. Owen Feltham has justly observed: "I believe there is nothing in religion contrary to reason, if we knew it rightly;" and it may be yet further affirmed, that there is not a single proposition in religion, but to which, "if we knew it rightly," reason would utter an affirmative response. It was an axiom with Bossuet, that "every error is a truth abused;" but it is, we think, more correct to say, that

every error in religion springs from an abuse of reason. There is certainly no discrepancy between the human judgment and the teachings of revelation, except when we draw conclusions without data, or from insufficient data; or substitute hypothesis for fact; or, in some way, allow our depraved nature to pervert the exercise of our reasoning faculties.

1. The doctrine is not repugnant to reason, for it is not opposed to any abstract truth.

It is an abstract and self-evident truth, that arithmetically one is not three, and that three are not one. It is an abstract and self-evident truth, that no being can be one and three at the same time and in the same sense; and, therefore, to affirm this, would be to contradict a self-evident proposition, and to maintain a palpable absurdity. But this is not the doctrine of the Trinity, nor does it bear any semblance to it. The doctrine that in the Godhead there are distinctions in personal consciousness, combined with identity of nature and attributes, is nothing more than to affirm that a being may be singular in one sense and plural in another; and this involves no contradiction. It is perfectly consistent with abstract truth, and is illustrated by actual truth: we have numerous illustrations of it in the phenomena of Nature. In the constitution of a human being, we have a conjunction of unity and plurality. A human being is one, but his nature is twofold. There is a spiritual principle, called the soul, and a material organization, called the body; yet these two natures, so diverse in their properties, make but one being or person realized by one consciousness. We have here an illustration of the truth in question-that a being may be single in one sense and plural in another; and it is a demonstration of, at least, the possibility of the truth being exemplified in the Divine nature. If the nature of the creature involves an exemplification of the principle, on what ground can it be excluded from the Creator? If fact demonstrates that the truth in question is illustrated in the economy of human nature, to deny its applicability to the Divine nature is to reason against analogy and fact. It is, indeed, to assume that the nature of the Creator is more

limited than that of the creature; it is to say that God can illustrate a truth in his works, of which he cannot possibly have any counterpart or correspondence in himself-which is illogical, if not absurd.

Should it be alleged that there is no analogy in the example adduced, because in a human being the personality is one though the nature is two, but in the Trinity the personality is said to be plural while the essence is singular, we reply: The objection thus adduced can have no force; for, if in the constitution of a being plurality and unity are seen harmoniously and consistently conjoined, the principle for which we contend is established. It matters not whether the personal consciousness be single and the nature plural, as in the constitution of a human being; or whether the personal consciousness be plural and the nature single, as in the Deity; the principle of plurality, being compatible with unity, is as clearly and obviously exemplified in the one case as in the other. There may be a mystery in each, but, abstractedly considered, it is difficult to say which we should deem the greater mystery, were they both equally new to us, and both proposed together, at the same time, to the mind for its decision. Had we never heard of either until now, and some superior being were to demand from us, "Which do you think is the greater mystery, whether for a being purely spiritual to be three in person and one in nature; or for a being to be one in person and two in nature?" we are inclined to think that, supposing the absence of all bias from our past experience, we should regard it as more mysterious for such a heterogeneous compound as mind and matter to form one person, than for a threefold consciousness to reside in one purely spiritual and homogeneous nature. Such is our conviction; but, irrespective of this, the fact itself of our nature presenting a constitution in which plurality consists with unity, shows that the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is perfectly compatible both with abstract and actual truth.

Nor can a single à posteriori argument against the Trinity be drawn from any part of the economy of Nature. It is true the universal prevalence of law and harmony, the uniform